Email conversations with James Repace:

Scientist unprofessionally swears at the public in emails

Contraband Update and Ventilation

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 before accepting funds obviously intended to go elsewhere.

All participating stakeholders have purposefully been deceptive in descriptions of tobacco smoke and mortality outcomes. The proof can be found at Health Canada in Sammec research, which demonstrates a timeline dose response relationship not corresponding to smoking habits 20-30 years previously nearly as predominant as the exposures to environmental dioxins. The smoking patterns in 1976 were reduced significantly while dioxin levels were on the rise corresponding with the increases of mortality more obviously mirroring dioxin poisoning. The increases of many other related diseases more significantly attributed to dioxins have been increasing as smoking decreases. The existence of trace amounts of dioxins in cigarettes is ignored when assessing smokers exposed,  painting a picture smoking has a more significant unrelated danger than dioxins although significant associations are evident consistently.

By reducing dioxin potentials in cigarettes we cannot help but reduce mortality in smoking, apparently not much interest is seen in reducing potential harm, more so collection of taxes and protecting industry positions is more predominant in stakeholders concerns. 47,000 preventable deaths are largely being ignored for self-important motivating factors in absence of civic responsibility, which could limit the mortality figures significantly with simplistic regulation removing chlorine and chlorine derivatives from tobacco products. Additionally Import regulations need to be significantly adjusted to conform to domestic growing and curing guidelines. Allowing the advertising and sale of smokeless tobacco products will significantly reduce disease and mortality of respiratory tract risks. If 47,000 preventable deaths are to be reduced, the focus should shift to the product and away from punishing the consumers.

Additional citations

·  Akhtar F, Garabrant D, Ketchum N, Michalek J. Cancer in US Air Force veterans of the Vietnam war. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:123-136. [PubMed] [Full Text]

·  Aylward LL, Hays SM. Temporal trends in human TCDD body burden: decreases over three decades and implications for exposure levels. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2002;12:319-328. [PubMed] [Full Text]

·  Baccarelli A, Pesatori A, Master S, Patterson D, Needham L, Mocarelli P, et al. Aryl-hydrocarbon receptor-dependent pathway and toxic effects of TCDD in humans: a population-based study in Seveso, Italy. Toxicol Lett. 2004;149:287-293. [PubMed] [Full Text]

·  Becher H, Flesch-Janys D, Kauppinen T, Kogevinas M, Steindorf K, Manz A, et al. Cancer mortality in German male workers exposed to phenoxy herbicides and dioxins. Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7:312-321. [PubMed]

·  Becher H, Steindorf K, Flesch-Janys D. Quantitative cancer risk assessment for dioxins using an occupational cohort. Environ Health Perspect. 1998;106(suppl 2):663-670. [PubMed]

·  Bertazzi P, Consonni D, Bachetti S, Rubagotti M, Baccarelli A, Zocchetti C, et al. Health effects of dioxin exposure: a 20-year mortality study. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;153:1031-1044. [PubMed] [Full Text]

·  Bertazzi P, di Domenico A. 2003. Health consequences of the Seveso, Italy, accident. In: Dioxins and Health (Schecter A, Gasiewicz TA, eds). New York:John Wiley & Sons, 827-853.

·  Bodner K, Collins J, Bloemen L, Carson M. Cancer risk for chemical workers exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:672-675. [PubMed] [Free Full Text]

·  Carlson D, Perdew G. A dynamic role for the Ah receptor in cell signaling? Insights from a diverse group of Ah receptor interacting proteins. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2002;16:317-325. [PubMed]

·  Cole P, Trichopoulus D, Pastides H, Starr T, Mandel J. Dioxin and cancer: a critical review. Regul Toxicol Pharamacol. 2003;38:378-388.

·  Crump KS, Canady R, Kogevinas M. Meta-analysis of dioxin cancer dose response for three occupational cohorts. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:681-687. [ Free Full text in PMC]

·  Enan E, El-Sabeawy F, Scott M, Overstreet J, Lasley B. Alterations in the growth factor signal transduction pathways and modulators of the cell cycle in endocervical cells from macaques exposed to TCDD. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1998;151:283-293. [PubMed] [Full Text]

·  Fingerhut M, Halperin W, Marlow D, Piacitelli L, Honchar P, Sweeney M, et al. Cancer mortality in workers exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:212-218. [PubMed]