"Blu and Sky Cigs - contain levels of hazardous chemicals that are almost all indistinguishable from levels in ambient air. The few chemicals that were detected were present at levels between 50 and 900 times lower than that in cigarette smoke."

Almost all??? can you elaborate?

Did this study distinguish, in discussion of the thousands of other chemicals or "toxins" because the smoke would include ambient air, as second hand smoke does, if the majority of the same 10,000 so called "toxic ingredients", we would presumably find in second hand e-cig smoke, are distinctive [IOW; also in the almost all category] from the names and levels found in tobacco smoke?

You did buy into this half truth when you joined your peers promoting fear among the public in the past. By what stretch of the imagination do you believe we will not see them replicate the same fear promotion, that worked for them the first time around? While trying to scare the majority of the population one more time [new study says...] to entitle themselves, to continue with this convenient ruse?

You must understand by now the only effective way to expose these scandalous frauds, is to publicly expose the foundation, from which they were built. The media groups who took money to promote Public Health fear and frauds in the news, have a legal obligation to stand silent, honoring their sales agreement. But only till the point a crime is being alleged and examined. That examination will not happen until an insider whistle blower with tobacco paper style evidence steps up, to wet the public interest. Driving the next big thing in the scandal sheets and the twitter-verse. At that point the media groups who sold those ads will be racing to do damage control, by claiming themselves to be credible and reliable, with no other choice of spin available, but to paint themselves as duped victims of Government and big industry funded, social marketing purchases as well. Taking the government and the politicians they will name, at their word. McCarthy reinvented, to serve the same political design.

Readjustments will happen, it really is just a matter of time. For Public Health crusaders, it is only a question which side of the court they will find themselves. As defendants, or prosecution witnesses.

A HPHC is a "Harmful OR POTENTIALLY harmful constituent" So to answer your question, yes they did account for all of those chemicals since they were looking at all known harms as well as all potential harms.

Ambient air represents the natural state of the air without any human interaction - so your point about there being air in second hand smoke is irrelevant because they only compared it to the ambient air. It's impossible for ambient air to be a constituent of another mixture because if that were the case the air would be by definition not ambient (i.e contains more than a

After that you sort of descend into ranting and don't actually make any points

CLEAN smoke-free air.
Arsenic is a deadly poison and airborne arsenic can cause lung cancer.
Each cubic meter of ‘clean-smoke free’ urban air can contain as much arsenic as is produced by your average cigarette!!!

How much arsenic might there be in urban air?
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/p...
urban areas generally have mean arsenic levels in air ranging from 20 to 30 ng/m3.

There is,indeed, Arsenic in cigarette smoke. Here: (The 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study. Final Report 07/24/00) we find the average cigarette has 32ng of arsenic in all of it’s smoke,mainstream and side stream.

My house has about 450 cubic meters of space, At 30 ng/cubic meter, my house contains 13,500 ng of airborne arsenic provided by society.

I smoke a pack a day and that pack will produce 640 ng of arsenic in it’s smoke.
There is a total of about 14,140 ng of airborne arsenic in my house and 95.5% of that arsenic(13,500 ng) does NOT come from cigarette smoke.

Here is a list of 33 of the 188 toxic pollutants the American EPA has found will be in CLEAN smoke free urban air.

Some you may recognize as being in cigarette smoke and there are some that are not found in cigarette smoke.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nat...

Acetaldehyde-Acrolein-Acrylonitrile-Arsenic Compounds-Benzene-Beryllium Compounds-1,3-Butadiene-Cadmium Compounds-Carbon tetrachloride-Chloroform-Chromium Compounds-Coke Oven Emissions- 1,3-Dichloropropene-Diesel Particulate Matter-Ethylene dibromide-Ethylene dichloride-Ethylene oxide-Formaldehyde-Hexachlorobenzene- Hydrazine-Lead Compounds-Manganese Compounds-Mercury Compounds-Methylene chloride-Nickel Compounds-Perchloroethylene-Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (7-PAH)-Propylene dichloride-Quinoline-1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane- Trichloroethylene-Vinyl chloride

Everything in tobacco smoke is already in the air................always has been.

The 95.5% is understated it should be closer to 99.9999% because dilution of what are very small amounts would all but eliminate measurable levels, originating in the tobacco smoke, as it is being produced, very close to the levels found at baseline. Think about the enormity of the ambient air available. They try to say ventilation is useless, regardless of the ignorance and incompetence implied and now attached to science.

If you took a measure potent enough to kill every person on the planet and dumped it into the ocean. A sample taken the next day, would not show any measurable elevation. Our airspace is much larger.

As an e-cig is used, how do you define what part of the "mixture" is air and what originates in the device other than by means of a sealed smoking machine with a guess, in defining what the norms of use will be? Or You measure the levels found in air samples, and subtract it, from the total found in the normal environment acquired mixture samples. While trying to decide, which parts of that mixture, can be eliminated, as originating from the e-cig source.

The trick is trying to keep bias and emotional beliefs, out of the portion of the evaluation, that requires any human intervention. People are free to believe what they will, which is the impropriety of "risk management" as a tool to make health relevant decisions. Dictators also decide what they will.

The point I was making was that second hand smoke figures released to the media, were almost without exception reliant on an inclusion of ambient air, to promote the "thousands of deadly toxins and carcinogens" chant.

We were looking at unremarkable burned leaves at the end of the day. Otherwise there would be more concern raised about the additives, and more recognition of the health benefits, in countries that banned all additives.

Repace tried to pull the wool over a Judge's eyes a while back, using his always predictable tactics, [he implies all fine particulate, is toxic and carcinogenic and it originates exclusively in tobacco smoke] until someone noticed the levels inside a smoke free courtroom, were identical to the tobacco exposed apartment, of his fleeced client.

The Public Health Mafia is repeating the same tactic, with the thousands of deadly toxins and carcinogens that will be discovered, and announced in the bold print soon. Watch for it, it will emerge as "new study says...." The ground work has already been placed.

Unfortunately it's a study by Lorriard so it's likely to be ignored.

Exactly, but then they are only studying what vapers already know, particularly those that make their own eliquid, and know exactly what goes into their juice.

Millions of vapers world wide, also know the benefits of switching from tobacco smoking, but they have also been consistently ignored.

It takes a special kind of narcissistic and arrogant wanker to ignore what is so obvious, but tobacco control and public health are chock full of arrogant narcissists. All the scientific studies in the world wont change the minds of those who deliberately set out to lie.

I know the proper way to discount is to provide actual evidence however that is not how tobacco control works. They will look at this study and say it's just Lorriard.

We need a law to prevent people from pulling other people's fingers. Perhaps an adjustment to the ever popular smoking in cars with children law. Promoted with stock photos of babies bathed in smoke.

Where a 16 year old boy can be charged with endangering his 16 year old girlfriend. Who has a smoke herself, while patiently waiting for the citation.

In an environment that allows both, to possess and use those cigarettes, with the people who sold them carrying the weight of the blame. Always about the money. Tobacco users are no more addicted to smoking, than the government is addicted to stealing our money by impropriety.

This is sum and total of what they want you to see, while selling these ridiculous laws;

Notice the kid isn't the least bit bothered by the smoke...........

That smoke is the result of a poor Photoshop manipulation.

I think we all figured that out even the Nazis must have too.

same manipulation that airbrushed the cigarette out of the beatles album cover

"There is no safe level.........". I have a feeling Doc is reconsidering that bit of propaganda.

Brilliant! If there's no safe level, then it doesn't matter how slight the levels expelled in vapor, it still isn't safe. I believe a tautology lies therein.

OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/...

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

Quote: [This should put an end to the assertions of many e-cigarette opponents that electronic cigarettes are not any safer than tobacco cigarettes. It exposes those public statements as being lies.]

Ah, my dear Dr. Siegel... You have way too much faith in your peers to actually see any truth before them that threatens not only their previous statements, but their very livelihood. But do not fret, this study will be ignored because a) it doesn't promote the current propaganda campaign, and b) the study was funded / conducted by a big tobacco company. Although "ignored" might be too optimistic, as it will likely be summarily dismissed and tossed away.

They will remain consistent, in seeing only what they want to see, and nothing more.

Aren't the Emperor's clothes beautiful?

This is really good news and more evidence to back up that vaping is relatively harmless especially when compared to smoking cigarettes. We have positive and sensible news like this and then on the other hand we have the media bringing every negative story up about vaping and everything else around the world. If you are considering taking up vaping as a replacement for smoking then visit eCig Directory UK at http://ecigdirectory.co.uk they have a huge database of shops in the UK and many of my friends have used this website. Thanks and keep up the good work :)

This 'really good news' will be ignored by the media. The masses will not hear a whisper about it.

Are those damn things more harmful than cigarettes or are they not? Are those damn things AS harmful as cigarettes or are they not? Gee, one could scratch one's head bald just thinking about it!

As long as you remain on your feet, you have less to worry about. Sitting is the new tobacco I hear. I just fail to see, how big tobacco is cashing in on that one?

;-)

That does appear to be the only two theories that many in TC will accept.

Bobbilly,
Yes, I already have positive confirmation of your hypothesis. E-cigarette opponents have discredited the study because it was conducted by Lorillard, without even addressing the actual findings or why they are not valid. I absolutely think that the authorship of the study needs to be taken into account in evaluating it. Nevertheless, one must be able to identify why the science is not valid. It is not enough to simply say it's not valid because it's from Lorillard. If we took that approach with all studies, there would be no drugs on the market right now.

There would be no legal products on the market right now, to be more precise. Although the consistent and ongoing, illegal activities of drug makers, should never be taken lightly.

Mike wrote:

"This research also demonstrates how misguided the FDA is in its scientific judgment."

What's misguided are Obama's FDA "deeming regulation" policy agenda (since 2011) that would ban >99% of vapor products, and Obama's DHHS lobbying campaign to impose the "deeming regulation" by deceiving and scaring the public about vaping.

The FDA is fully aware of the scientific evidence on e-cigs, but has continuously misrepresented the scientific evidence in order to prevent cigarette smokers from switching to far less hazardous vapor products.

Bill, Government agencies beyond the health-scare industry, are making huge purchases in the regions of billions of dollars. Tax funded expenditures. Ask any of these agencies what they can show in the way of advertising, we might have seen.

If there is nothing they can demonstrate as products received for that expenditure, where did those funds go?

If they do admit what was actually purchased under the guise of social marketing, would that be seen in a positive light by the Public? Or good value for the tax payers, being forced to fund politics? Of a nature described at the WHO; as a creation of an environment, demanding risk adverse societies.

Does it fall outside of the understanding, of any of the so called "experts" involved in oversight, [People who believe inherently and repeat often, that all things affect Public Health] that absolute safety is unachievable? Therefore a risk adverse society, with selective priorities, is in fact and function, a dictatorship.

Two thugs walk into a china shop. One approaches the proprietor of the business telling him they are in the insurance business and it would be advisable for the proprietor to purchase insurance to guard against any harms that might befall his business should he not purchase that insurance. As this is going on the second guy starts breaking expensive articles he sees on the shelves of the store.

Are these two involved in an activity that in any way differs from the "protections" provided by Public Health?

Of course E Cigarette industry sponsored studies will be met with skepticism by the ANTZ. But then, most studies for Big Pharma's products are self-sponsored.

Pharma Controls Clinical Trials Of Their Drugs. Is This Hazardous To Your Health?
http://www.forbes.com/sites...

What's good for the goose, is (or at least should be) good for the gander.

Researchers find no significant change in smokers' habits after smoking ban

Published on March 4, 2015 at 1:07 AM

http://www.news-medical.net...

Conclusions: No significant change in home smoking bans
was found 18 months after implementation of a public smoking ban. There remains a need for efforts to better inform smokers about health risks from exposure to SHS in homes and the reality that strategies other than a total smoking ban inside the home are ineffective.

http://ntr.oxfordjournals.o...

"strategies other than a total smoking ban inside the home are ineffective"

I don't think it would be very wise to go there reverend....

Jack Listerio asks, "Why are there any smoking bans at all, they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!"

Why, Jack?

"In a March 11 [1998] Boston Globe article, Michael Siegel, School of Public Health assistant professor of behavioral sciences, says that because of tobacco smoke, air inside restaurants and bars can have from 2 to 6 times the amount of carbon monoxide, nicotine, and particulates of a typical office or home, and that bar and restaurant workers have a 1.5 to 2 times higher risk of lung cancer. Boston lawyers recently put advertisements in local papers seeking restaurant and bar workers who developed lung cancer after being exposed to secondhand smoke on the job and who are willing to sue tobacco companies. 'It's really a life and death issue for the restaurant worker,' Siegel says in the article. He estimates that nonsmoking bar workers inhale carcinogens in the workplace in levels equivalent to smoking half a pack to two packs of cigarettes per day." -- B.U. Bridge, Week of 20 March 1998.

That's why, Jack!

Michael R. Fox.
Nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor.
- Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxins or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels.

"Robert Nilsson,
Professor of Molecular Toxicology, Stockholm University, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology.

"The one-sided preoccupation with enviromental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a causative factor of lung cancer in nonsmokers may seriously hinder the elucidation of the multifactorial etiology of these tumors."

In the book 'What Risk?' Professor Nilsson puts children's risk of passive smoking in this perspective:
"Looked at another way, a child's intake of benzo[a]pyrene during 10 hours from ETS is estimated to be about 250 times less than the amount ingested from eating one grilled sausage""”

Nearly everybody breathes in 14-15 packs a day of the same chemicals found in a tobacco smoke by volumetric measure. You see the natural air is made up of all the same chemicals found in tobacco smoke as is all vegetative matter. Its why the Prohibitionists above had chosen continine the bdies metabolite for nicotine as a measure of exposures to SHS/ETS unfortunately for the Prohibitionists nearly all the foods we eat are also full of high doses of nicotine like tomoatoes and potatoes,tea etc etc. All our foods and drinks even water contain the same chemicals as in tobacco smoke. That beautiful restaurant smoke smell from the grill as you drive up full of millions of equal cigarttes. Even indoors the natural air again and then all that hundreds of exhaled human carcinogens being released with every breath you take or every bite you take. Its the same at home or anywhere you may go,you cant escape the same chemicals as whats in tobacco smoke its impossible!

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke

About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms.

Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_...

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

Id suggest you shove your 1.19 rr up your lying arse.........

By brainwashing people into thinking that SHS is harming them, it puts the focus on hating and vilifying smokers, (a minority group), by suggesting that they alone are responsible for the ill health of everyone around them. This means smokers are a convenient scapegoat, and other means of air pollution, and those that cause this pollution, basically get a free ride on the back of smokers.

In Australia the latest scare campaign from the ANTZ tells people that smoking "causes" (yes it does use this term, although there is no evidence for this claim), 16 types of cancer. Quite rightly people are questioning why, if these cancers are "caused" by smoking, do non-smokers get these cancers and many die from them. It also sends the message that if you don't smoke, you wont get these cancers.

The other issue with these lies, is that these cancers, (the ones claimed to be "caused" by smoking), cannot be blamed on SHS any longer, as there is virtually nowhere that non-smokers will come in contact with SHS. The incidents of these cancers is rising, while the percentage of smokers is falling, yet the ANTZ keep pushing the lie.

Time to find another scapegoat. We are already seeing the beginnings of this, but neither alcohol, obesity or sugar, are as useful as blaming smokers, unless they can manufacture a way to make eating or drinking dangerous to others by merely being in the same room.

I suspect, (in fact I know), that there is a lot of junk science in the production pipeline, trying desperately to find another scapegoat.

We live in interesting times.

Its already happening their junk science claims from the last 60 years is falling all apart.

Mummies' clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix

By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am

You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You're preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? • Well, maybe modern life isn't as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.

According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis — the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.

"Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes," said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. "The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease."

The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.

Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.

"All of us age in every tissue of our body," says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. "It's just a question of how rapidly it happens. There's nothing you can do to stop aging. All you're trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should."

The authors of the paper agree. "Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease," they concluded.

So what can we do to thwart that predisposition?

Above all, don't smoke, says LaVan, and engage in regular physical activity.

"After that, we're in the realm of treating disease," he says. "If your lipids are up or you have hypertension, take care of it. If you have problems with rhythm disturbances, that must be treated, too, because it impairs the ability of heart to pump efficiently. We're looking at common sense here, but getting patients to do these things is tough."

http://www.tampabay.com/new...

OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/...

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

Stolen from MJM over at Leggys place.........

Every time they exhale in a nice smoke-free pub that’s ditched its high end ventilation system to survive in the impoverished smoke-free world, you are being treated to a pleasant mix of up to 3,000 VOCs (Volatile Organic Chemicals), all of which are poisonous in sufficient concentrations. It’s not all that much different from the secondhand smoke you’ve been warned all your life about: it’s got formaldehyde and acetone and acetocholine etc … stuff used to preserve corpses and all manner of other goodies.

BUT… if you’re in a smoke-banned pub, you’ll never KNOW just how poor the ventilation is! So you’ll sit there, happily dying in ignorance, inhaling the waste products your mates exhale, as well as their viruses and bacteria!

So, have fun and enjoy the nice, clear, deadly air while you can!

– MJM

While you can means the repeals are coming soon as the junk science falls apart!

The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.

spiked-onlinedotcom/newsite/article/13287#dotU6ibAzYo59A

New guidelines from the WHO say the world is eating too much sugar and people should slash their sugar intake to just
5 to 10% of their overall calories.
To meet the lower threshold set by the new guidelines, Americans, Europeans and others in the West would have to slash their average sugar intake by about two-thirds.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/healt...

I think a better plan would be for the governments to reduce funding to the unelected and repeatedly proven corrupt UN/WHO by two-thrids...

I like like Hitlers way as does the UN and WHO just drag them/UN/WHO out and cut their heads off. ISIS also approves.

particulates of a typical office or home, and that bar and restaurant workers have a 1.5 to 2 times higher risk of lung cancer.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

BTW Harry Dr Siegel dropped that hoax study years ago and I believe was why he started this blog to begin with.
Even he got sick of it for the most part,even getting kicked off of global link...........But I think he is safely on the way to becoming an ex-Nazi soon by denying all the bogus claims.

Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
one risk factor, including social factors.

Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
to epidemiology.”

But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
it was public health that mattered!

we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Sl-utz and Nutz Implant
Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
lives that selective blindness has caused!