Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this article |
Ignoring Pesticides, Chlorine, Pharms, etc., In Cigs. WHY? (english)
Email: jejonik (nospam) juno.com
01 Oct 2003
Modified: 23 Oct 2003
Nice. Cambridge and Sommerville banned "smoking" in bars. Now...when will gov't officials ban Chlorine and dioxin, radiation, untested and known toxic and carcinogenic Non-Tobacco cig ingredients? When, also, will they get to DESCRIBING and analyzing the "smoke" they banned? Is the phrase "Blame The Victims" still in use?
As the Bush league is against terrorism, so too is the cigarette cartel against "smoking". This is generally The Pretend Enemy tactic...used by perpetrators of crimes to distract, obfuscate, and control the debates about their particular deeds in order to evade prosecution, embarrassment, profit losses and liabilities.
The cigarette cartel includes many we don't hear about in the Globe or elsewhere. It includes big oil (pesticides galore and chlorine), pharms (more pesticides, more chlorine and even cigarette additives), Agribusinesses (MANY non-tobacco ingredients, most pesticide contaminated), fertilizers (source of low-level but still deadly radiation in typical cigs), sugar (to better lure the kids), adhesives, acetate, spices, chocolate and cocoa, many advertisers, AND all their insurers and investors....remembering that insurers ARE some of the biggest investors. Also...of course...we have public officials who economically benefit from most of the above.
THIS is why they work to ban "tobacco"...and NOT ban secret use of untested and often deadly non-tobacco cigarette ingredients.
Pull the curtain back from virtually any "anti-smoking" group or activist and you will find PR firms from parts of Big Cig. Porter Novelli, for one, is notorious for its pesticide work...PRO pesticide, that is...ANTI-toxics activism. But they are "anti-smoking", not anti pesticide residues in cigs.
No law can be legitimate if the focus of the law is not at least described, defined or analyzed. "Smoking" has NOT been described, defined or analyzed for content. There are INFINITE varieties of smoke. Incense or cooking smoke, for example, is VERY far removed from
smoke from a toxic waste incinerator.
Bottom line: "smoking bans" are tricks, painted as "wholesome" and "healthy", to blame the victims of decades of secret product adulteration for the health problems caused by those who adulterated the products. Burdens of law are heaped onto smokers (of what, they are not told) and bar/restaurant proprietors, etc., who had nothing to do with the mass secret poisonings and the resultant health calamities and costs.
The Prudentials and other insurers are happy that their cigarette manufacturing clients are off the liability hook...and that some guy who lights up in a "no smoking" zone will be arrested instead.
Even those who hate smoke and smokers may just recognize a great injustice here. Maybe those who hate cigarettes are INSURED by part owners (via investments) of cigarette interests. Now...would such an insurer be trustworthy to administer HEALTH care? It's a question.
Here then are a list of links to consider regarding any "smoking" laws that may pop up. Massachusetts, home of the sadly dormant Cigarette Ingredients Listing Law, ought to know better than to allow
"smoking bans" to substitute for consumer product safety regulations.
Hell, the very officials who promote the "bans" are doubtlessly funding recipients of members of the Cig Cartel...though not the obvious manufacturers, of course. Dare anyone ASK?
** April ('03), the General Accounting Office (GAO) condemned lax government monitoring of tobacco pesticides. See: Wash Post > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32003-2003Apr24.html <
And...Environmental News Service > > http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2003/2003-04-25-09.asp#anchor2 <
*** Partial list of non-tobacco cig ingredients from which manufacturers select their secret "recipes":
The Nation mag, in 91, reported about dangerous additives to "lite" cigs but can't get a copy on line...yet.
*** Bill Drake's invaluable site:
*** www.pmdocs.com (Philip Morris had to post this as part of "settlement")
***The Massachusetts Tobacco Ingredients and Nicotine Yield Act is at:
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Decision is at:
***The revised "Ninth Report" that contains all addendum materials is available on the Internet from the National Toxicology Program's web page at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov
***Radiation contaminating tobacco...
*** www.chem.unep.ch/pops/ The 12 initial POPs include eight pesticides (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene), two industrial chemicals (PCBs and hexachlorobenzene, which is also a pesticide), and two unwanted by-products of combustion and industrial processes (dioxins and furans). [ But Carbofurans are on lists of tobacco pesticides...so, I don't quite understand this.]
***** From Pesticicide Action Network, re/ 450 still registered tobacco pesticides http://www.panna.org/resources/documents/tobacco.dv.html :
Tobacco, Farmers and Pesticides: The Other Story
May 1998 By Ellen Hickey and Yenyen Chan
*** RJR's (biased) review of Judge Osteen's rejection of EPA "secondhand smoke" stuff.
*** More on EPA/2nd hand smoke; All garbage that avoids all along anything about what's IN "secondhand smoke". Cigs not defined or analyzed...smoke not defined or analyzed. This is SCIENCE??
**** Re "ETS" Environmental Tobacco Smoke"...except that no one TESTED unadulterated tobacco smoke for ANYTHING. Both sides doing a dance.
*** And I just re-found this troubling note:
"The best source for information on exemptions is the UNEP website,
http://irptc.unep.ch/pops/, under "Stockholm Convention on POPs." The
Convention text itself is informative, as is the revised list of requested exemptions. ...." It indicates that "unintentional" dioxins, like in products (like in typical cigarettes?) may not be covered in the POPs Treaty. Does WHO know this?
**** Fantastic scandal...that never heated up: Health insurers links to Big Cig.
*** Re/ "fire safe" cigs: http://www.ameriburn.org/advocacy/fireSafeCig.htm
``The Massachusetts Tobacco Ingredients and Nicotine Yield Act is at:
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Decision is at:
*** No "link" to this at CDC but....here it is copied:
Dioxns in Cigarette Smoke
Copy of an abstract from US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Ga.
Authors: H. Muto, Y. Takazawa
Title: Dioxins in Cigarette Smoke
From: Archives of Environmental Health, Pg. 44 (3); 171-4
Date: May/June 1989
Dioxins in cigarettes, smoke, and ash were determined using gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry. The total concentration of
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) in cigarette smoke was
approximately 5.0 micrograms/m3 at the maximum level, whereas various
cogeners from tetra-octa-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ( -CDD) were detected.
Particularly, the total concetration of hepta-CDD cogeners was the
highest among these cogeners. Mass fragmentograms of various PCDD
cogeners were similar to those in flue gas samples collected from a
municipal waste incinerator. The PCDD cogeners that were not present in the cigarettes were found in the smoke samples, the 2, 3, 7,8-TCDD toxic equivalent value---an index for effects on humans---for total PCDDs in smoke was 1.81nng/m3 using the toxic factor of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Daily intake of PCDDs by smoking 20
cigarettes was estimated to be approximately 4.3 pg. kg body/weight/day.
This value was close to that of the ADIs; 1-5 pg kg body/weight/day
reported in several countries. A heretofore unrecognized health risk was represented by the presence of PCDDs in cigarette smoke.
*** Methyl Bromide use on tobacco:
***US Gov't Accounting Office March 2003 report on lax gov't monitoring of tobacco pesticide residues. GAO fails to note dioxin from the chlorine chemicals, and fails to define what it means by "smoking", but...
*** The whole Muto/Takazawa piece on "Dioxins in Cigarette Smoke". Archives of Environmental Health, Pg. 44 (3) : 171-4 May/Jun89 (Compare to "Health Effects..." just below.)
*** HEALTH EFFECTS OF DIOXINS ...w/ info re/ U.S. dioxin maximum limits etc. (Compare to Muto/Takazawa discoveries re/ dioxin in cig smoke. Do the easy math. Result: just 20 typical cigs, w/ chlorine, hit unwitting victims with 716 times the US minimum for dioxin exposure!): http://www.gascape.org/index%20/Health%20effects%20of%20Dioxins.html
***Interesting. "Smokers" job performance better than non-smokers! Journal of Psychology. 2002 May;136(3):339-49 Related Articles, Links
***from the National Center on Food and Agricultural Policy, from
1997 use data. (Not all, just major tobacco pesticides); Number, I believe, is pounds used per anum. Will have to double check: http://www.ncfap.org
MALEIC HYDRAZIDE 1,790,089
METHYL BROMIDE 685,026
TOBACCO Total 26,974,241
*** "Liggett Documents Show Pesticide Use For Tobacco," (...such as DDT, endrin, and malathion.) WALL STREET JOURNAL, April 9, 1997, p. B8. (sdb 4/9/97) [can't find computer link, yet.]
**** Title: How cigarette additives are used to mask environmental tobacco smoke.
Dr. Gregory N Connolly, Director, Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health
Check out these websites for burn accelerants added to cigarettes:
> and these websites for toxic gases from the burning of synthetic fabrics...which happens when a Burn Accelerated cigarette may fall:
What about our environment? (english)
by Kris Samsel
krissamsel.dsl (nospam) verizon.net (unverified)
01 Oct 2003
Cigarettes KILL. No shit. My mom died from smoking. Lung cancer.
Steel Mills, Power Plants, Autos, Trains, Trucks and many other fossil burning machinery is quietly killing ALL of us.
Focus. Let's nail the polluters first. INDUSTRY. Then, go after smokers "drug dealers".
Why fuck with the small time? Get the REAL KILLERS.
Not "'cigarettes". It's what KIND... (english)
jejonik (nospam) juno.com (unverified)
23 Oct 2003
Without qualifying the word "cigarette", we ignore science and medicine, and the reality of what the typical products are. No one says that marijuana cigarettes kill. Just the opposite, in fact. And no one has said or shown that PLAIN, unadulterated tobacco cigarettes kill....OR that they even cause disease OR cause overdosing or even fires, for that matter.
What do kill, and inevitably cause disease, are TYPICAL chlorine-adulterated, radiation-containing, addiction-enhanced, fire-starting, multi-ingredient, highly-processed products that, in some cases, may not contain any tobacco at all.
If this INTEGRAL point isn't made in the "smoking" brouhaha, the killers will be let off the hook, to keep the profits, to evade scrutiny and liabilities, and will be permitted to CONTINUE this homicidal activity. We are talking about those who put known deadly stuff into cigs, those who knowingly supplied this stuff, and who, in gov't, permitted this atrocity and helped cover it up in secrecy.
Those who are part of this cig cartel work mightily, and globally, to blame the uninformed, unprotected, insufficiently-warned victims...those who are still deceived into thinking they are smoking just tobacco. Blame is also put, without study, on the natural, public domain, unpatentable, traditionally-used Tobacco Plant. For the sake of dodging liabilities, investigations, questions, exposure, profit losses, discreditation of "public" officials, and even criminal prosecution, we are told (by corporate media) to despise "evil" tobacco and to fight things like "smoking" and "smoke" and "cigarettes" and "secondhand smoke" without a SHRED of analysis or description of ANY of those terms.
As smokers and relatives of smokers ought be outraged...so to ought anyone else. This is about a gross miscarriage of justice. It IS about our environment...as tobacco is about the SIXTH most pesticide-drenched crop...as the pesticide firms are the SAME ones who dump pesticides everywhere else, INCLUDING peasant farms in Peru and Bolivia etc. We are talking about the OIL FIRMS that are now part of the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq...and who are responsible for every disastrous ocean spill.
We are talking about PHARMACEUTICAL firms that ALSO make tobacco pesticides. EVERYONE ought consider how much they like getting HEALTH drugs from firms that are part of the killer pesticide and typical cig industries.
Chlorine, in cigs from pesticides, bleached paper, and the industrial waste cellulose used to make fake tobacco, is the most dangerous industrial substance ever made because it produces DIOXIN in manufacture, use and disposal...and by burning. Dioxin is a MASSIVE environmental disaster. NO ONE ON EARTH is now free of contamination with a potentially CANCER CAUSING body burden.
Chlorine chemicals are responsible for huge increases in melanoma by the CFC damage to the Ozone Layer.
Yet, in the interests of getting smelly smoke out of our hair...we are letting this Chlorine industry slide. We do not think of embarrassing the poor dears by just POINTING to the chlorine-bleached cig paper or the pesticides. We don't even note that many so-called "smoking related" diseases are IMPOSSIBLE to be caused by ANY natural plant but are Well Known to be effects of Dioxin Exposure.
There is a CHANCE that, if big chlorine/dioxin is exposed in the most demonized health area, "smoking", the ENTIRE public will finally get protection from this stuff...and get proper health treatment. We MIGHT just get laws to ban, not "smoking", but conflicts-of-interest in the public regulatory system. That is...Big Oil, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, Logging, Mining etc will NOT be permitted to buy laws that endanger us and our vital environment.
If justice prevails, there ought be enough money from penalties and suits to cover EVERYONE's Health Care for the next century or two.
In the meantime...folks ought reconsider the idea of trusting a CORPORATE promoted "consumer protection" crusade. Consumers are NOT being protected...corporations are. And we HELP them (and hurt ourselves) by joining, without question, this "smoking" brouhaha.