International embarassment
Is it time we saw a more logical perspective
This bears repeating;
If you as a smoker wish to regain your self-respect stop saying, you are sorry. Stop agreeing with the claims tobacco is dangerous in fact it is not some cigarettes are, no one is interested enough to tell us which. Cigarettes are a legal product the use of which does not afford others the right to steal your rights as an individual; the right to employment, housing, healthcare and security of the person under the law. If the government seeks to change the rules or the norm, they should do so with respect to all who are affected. Creating hate campaigns against their own citizens is a criminal act, which should be punished. If you wish them to stop attacking you, your indefensible position as a smoker needs to be replaced by their indefensible position as Neanderthals and industry stooges.
If hospitality workers demand protection, make them wear safety equipment like any other trade where a danger is perceived to exist. Steel toe boots and hardhats are acceptable precautions why did we not ban sharp objects or the forces of gravity? As for the general public if they wish to avoid cigarette smoke, placing a sign on the door will suffice in warnings where smoke may be encountered. When larger dangers exist in outdoor air the futility of smoking bans becomes laughable. Simple ideas do serve well if common sense and credible science were allowed to prevail. If smoking does cause such a degree of death and destruction, why has the government not banned it decades ago? Pot smoking was banned although no such dangers have been claimed allowing for the profits of organized crime to flourish while the cost of policing and incarcerations soared. Perhaps in keeping with the stability of government; respect needs to be maintained. In that light how could a government admit the causes of cancers and smoking related diseases might be actually more strongly related to other causes and Government actions. The identity of those causes might prove expensive to those really producing the devastation and to political support of those holding the bulk of the wealth and favors owed through philanthropy. If people started to realize how little control governments really have, many would question why should we continue to pay taxes or listen to the rule of law, when those laws are seen to be products for sale to the highest bidder.
Smokers need to wake up, the answer to their plight was there all along; start asking politicians how you could possibly defend such inhumane attitudes toward law abiding friends and neighbors in self gratuitous promotion of sin taxes and industry protections.
Smokers beyond the value of theoretic research can show real sound evidentiary proof Tobacco plays a small role in what are claimed to be smoking related diseases despite what the current witch hunt slogans and ad agency preparations have inspired. For evaluation of the present, we can look to the proof in historical context to illustrate the huge inconsistencies in what is being promoted.
In the 1950s in the UK and later by the American surgeon general the claims Tobacco is the root cause of all major diseases in the industrialized world. With this in mind why was the industry allowed to grow while little complaint or restrictions of ingredients were established for the following 55 years? Has the Government been negligent in their duty to protection of its citizens or are they already aware the public perception in harm assessment is dead wrong? With the invention of smoking bans, no common sense or degree of intelligence can explain; with the levels of concentrations consumed, how can the danger to non-smokers be greater than the danger to smokers without considerable manipulation of scientific opinion? Too many inconsistencies with too little explanations beyond the attack of the curious as an industry, advocate while the ban fans consistently direct themselves to the benefit of the Tobacco industry while punishing the victims.
In the UK in 1954, this is what was determined;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,1147463,00.html - article_continue
“What is already known on this matter is that there has been an increase in deaths from lung cancer in this country which began in 1919 and has continued ever since. That increase is much greater in males than in female in 1931, the number of deaths attributed to lung cancer in England and Wales was1, 358 for males and 522 for females. In 1952, there were 11,981 male and 2,237 female deaths from this cause. The highest mortality from lung cancer in males occurred in the 65-74 age group while in females the highest rate occurred in the 75 and over age group. Comparable increases have been reported in all countries from which reliable statistics are available. Tobacco smoking plays some part in this increase but it is certain that it cannot be the only factor since the disease occurs in non-smokers. All that can be said at present is that there is a presumption that smoking may cause lung cancer. Furthermore, although the risk of contracting the disease appears to increase with the amount smoked, particularly of cigarettes, no reliable estimate can be made of the precise effect of smoking.�
Prior to 1919 UK lung cancer was almost nonexistent by 1931 we saw 880 deaths in the next 20 years deaths increased to 14,218 Smoking certainly existed long before 1919 no significant increase in use occurred after 1919 which could equate the dramatic rise in cancer. So why was there such a dramatic increase between 1931 and 1952 in 20 years such a huge increase certainly should have an identifiable and specific cause. Doll in his research originally investigated asphalt as a possible cause of the Cancer increases, he abandoned this in favor of Tobacco quite a segue considering good science seemed to be on the right track in perusing oil products consistent with the increase in use, they mirrored identically the increase in mortality. Smoking although they announced at the time was a significant contributing cause, something else was going on here. Doll could not know of the interaction in use of asbestos in cigarette filters or the dangers of Dioxins in the increasing use of chlorine in the infancy of the growing cigarette industries. An industry which if responsible for the increases in cancer was well behind the actual mortality growth if you consider the now determined 20-30 year lag between use and onset of disease. The decreases in Tobacco use since 1960 in fact a 2/3 reduction also lacked a resulting decrease in mortality. The first decrease in cancers ever in fact corresponds perfectly with the decrease in environmental Dioxins since 1986 with a 8.7 year half life the reductions right on target showed mirrored reductions in cancers in 2003. Smoking bans therefore are necessary to preserve the lie, as we will see additional reductions in cancers as Dioxin levels continue to decrease.
" Johnny the envelope please"; The hypocrites in New York who supported a smoking ban are well aware a spike in Cancers will occur there soon due to environmental Dioxins caused by the 911 tragedy. When the cancer cluster is seen, it will be explained as surprising or may not be reported at all. The bans will not result in smoking related reductions to the contrary if you watch the timelines those reductions will not occur until 15 years after the tragedy. For the elderly the ability to purge the toxins will be understandably reduced. For many a shortened life as a result is inevitable. The ban fans will of course take credit for the eventual reductions and as always, ignore the actual dates to suit their means. The fact Dioxins have never been identified as a cause of cancer in smoking tells us a lot. The public believes science has not found a link, with proof in hand smoking could cause cancer why the hesitation in showing the proof? The answer is more dangerous than the question so it suits the stakeholders purposes to keep the mystery alive. Simply banning the use of chlorine from cigarettes could have saved the lives of millions. The resistance and cover-up of Agent Orange disease to American troops and how hard those affected had to fight to be compensated says a lot as well. The major effect of Agent Orange was chlorine related long term Dioxin poisoning. Smokers in a class action could similarly prove with good science how governments have allowed Cancers and smoking related diseases to continue without regulation simply to cover up the bigger lie; the cause of the majority of those so called smoking related diseases more correctly they should have been coined petrochemical and chlorine related diseases. At minimum Dioxin related diseases, which are undoubtedly, the major causes of preventable death among those who smoke. This can be shown with sound reproducible science. No estimates of epidemiology studies were ever needed other than to cast doubt on the truth and mire those who really seek to protect health down in tar pits of bureaucracy designed to stop them.
When Doll made the link between smoking and cancers, it has to be questioned why he decided to change direction and the fact the scientific community has abandoned the link to petrochemical products and burning of oil in the 50-year span since. The link to smoking already established although not explained research dollars have been predominantly focused on the tobacco link while funding for the more obvious culprit has been scarce. It took 50 years of battling the medical community in fact for the American EPA to finally list Diesel fuel as a carcinogen although science had proven consistently the huge risk in inhaling fuel and burned fuel fumes. Epidemiology was not necessary to prove consistently in Petrie dish testing, the danger was extreme. Since that listing little public concern has been raised in avoiding a scientifically sound provable danger, primarily because the statistically insignificant proof of ETS has been promoted in fear mongering media purchases. Campaigns designed in order to save government the embarrassment of real proof they were deliberately increasing the death toll. Global warming tripe that seeks to reduce CO2 while ignoring NOX and SOX emissions are consistent with the planned ignorance and refusal to deal with real hazards to community. In an age of information, the facts are getting harder to hide under the rugs of irresponsible politicians who proudly chant the phrase “preventable deaths� while conveniently avoiding legislative measures, which could prevent them. Petrochemical industries still carry the big stick in directing government opinions. The same oil companies as participating NGOs at the World health Organization and through Philanthropy contribute to a lot of medical institutions and Charity medical foundations, have in effect bought themselves a free pass, allowing tremendous death and disease to be excused, in profiting from the media promoted ideals. Public perceptions created of announced goodwill donations and feel good awards ceremonies inventing societal heroes. Heroes such as Sir Doll or Heather Crow who received accolades not for service to society rather service to politicians and industries who are grateful for their efforts. Anti smoker advocates worldwide have in effect protected the Cigarette manufacturers and assured growing profits in lowering operating costs, increased value of the product and allowed no responsibility for health risks associated with sales of products with known unsafe ingredients. Anti smokers, consistently state there is no proof one tobacco could be safer than another despite growing restrictions and flue curing methods reducing the dangers of Tobacco. Additional ingredients are added without restriction or question of those claiming to be driven by the protection of others. Obviously, these lobbies have values that are more important in mind. If Hospitality workers were the targets of protections, how would their numbers compare to the amount of people, who smoke and could be protected significantly, with a few minor ingredient restrictions? With all the anti Tobacco research money, flowing for the past 55 years it is amazing no conclusions on the safety of the product or the manufacture of cigarette products have been discovered aside from “it is all unsafe�. The grouping of “all smoking� as opposed to individual products in a wide brush claim is irresponsible and could lead to embarrassment in legal proceedings with no clear description in what is being called tobacco smoke. Source of tobacco smoke is entirely relevant in deriving a risk. Which brands which ingredient mixtures and percentage of if any tobacco included has never been disclosed? The reality of those products; if made safer could in fact reduce many deaths, which of course would reduce the need for smoking bans or governments funding the chemical industry advocates. Attacking the victim while promoting the product as with smoking is an indefensible position.
Perhaps another look at the facts and the players would explain the discrepancies the fact Rockefeller was convicted of unfair business practices dividing standard oil into 4 companies did not limit the ability of those in the industry to continue with domination principles. The control of American medicine by the Rockefellers could add some understanding to the events. Historically what happened in the 20-year frame, which saw such a dramatic, increase in lung cancers, an increase which has not been explained for the following 50 years? The real cause had to be known yet was allowed to continue; smoking was most likely just a convenient scapegoat. The size and influence of the tobacco industry was after all dwarfed in comparison to the oil and auto industries. The Second World War happened in the 20-year interim. An increase of Industrialization and use of oil which has increased consistently since. Smoking neither in the 20 year time frame or the 20 year or 30 year periods before the increases in cancer saw smoking increases equating the increased disease. The Oil companies in fact with the invention and production of cars starting in the early 1900s and increasing slowly at first before the Second World War and enormously since 1931 combined with war machinery produced to fight the war could be the only scientifically sound explanation for the new cancer phenomenon.
If you ask an oncologist most would tell you exposure to gasoline fumes is the predominant cause of brain tumors yet not one of them would put it in writing for fear of being attacked by the oil companies. The known safe level of Benzene is one part per million in air yet in Gasoline one part per hundred is the norm. Gas storage tanks are vented without restriction in residential neighborhoods throughout North America. The self-serve gas bar has worked well for the oil companies in reducing risk to oil company workers and avoiding scrutiny by adjusting the numbers. Now most of the workers sit inside the building away from constant exposure to the fumes.
Good science can always discredit great propaganda. Some realization of the big picture could show a lot of us the solutions to the current fear and hate campaign of the tyrants in anti smoker advocacy.
FXR
More Evidence
Smoker ban advocacy is a criminal activity and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
The involvement of the nations largest charities in the promotion of hatred,makes this unbelievably reprehensible in a so called enlightened and compasionate society.
If you as a smoker wish to regain your self-respect stop saying, you are sorry. Stop agreeing with the claims tobacco is dangerous in fact it is not, some cigarettes are, no one is interested enough to tell us which. Cigarettes are a legal product the use of which does not afford others the right to steal your rights as an individual; The right to employment, Housing, Healthcare and Security of the person under the law. If the government seeks to change the rules or the norm, they should do so with respect to all who are affected. Creating hate campaigns against their own citizens is a criminal act which should be punished. If you wish them to stop attacking you, your indefensible position as a smoker needs to be replaced by their indefensible position as promoters of hatred and paid industry stooges.
Here is one of the best examples I can offer in what your taxes are purchasing.
Indefensible in any perspective you can imagine.
Don’t you believe for a moment the Government is not profiting handsomely for your “Sin taxes�.. More appropriately coined special billing for healthcare according to the politicians illegal if you respect the rules of the Canada Health act which all parties in Canada swear are sacred. A sin used to refer to an immoral or illegal act not simply purchasing and under the tort contract in the agreement to purchase the legal product a right to use it. Many who smoke started when it was normal everywhere anyone could smoke without restriction. Now the rules are changing for lifetime smokers with a very difficult habit to break and for many a habit they do not wish to break after all the government as a majority partner in cigarettes making the most profit from selling them to you never indicated at some point they would punish you for using this legal product. Now they want to change the rules and ally themselves with another industry and stab their own partner in the back. They will not punish the partner in fact they will punish you. Demanding you use the other companies product or mercenaries will be paid your own tax contributions to make your life miserable. For 6 Million Canadians your own government has chosen you, to be the focal point of a hate and smear campaign. Teaching your own children in school to look down upon you as you harm others, smell like dog crap and kill defenseless babies, with only theoretic proof to substantiate the claims. The reality is theoretic or no proof at all, they never cared if any proof would ever be found, they committed to the US industry controlled World health Organization in a contract. A commitment to undermine Provincial authority and through three general elections since, hid the fact that contract existed, denying the public a chance to decide a major issue and a campaign to divide us once again in a promotion of hate. The opposition parties do not walk away from this clean it was their responsibility to inform you as well they too held their piece apparently amused in league with the give the smokers another kick mentality popular among the media groups. All parties amused apparently by the inappropriate hate campaign of a government against their own citizens.
Believe it or not on your dime they provide prospective lobby group partners the tools to organize and finance lobbies of their own so Government can pay them to lobby against you in the ever growing Health scam network all paid for with your taxes. If this is not criminal what ever could be in respect to a government at war with the population they have sworn to serve. It gets confusing here can you see this as an effort of service, or a turn of the tables.
Training the partners in organized crime
If hospitality workers demand protection, make them wear safety equipment like any other trade where a danger is perceived to exist. Steel toe boots and hardhats are acceptable precautions why did we not ban sharp objects or the forces of gravity? As for the general public if they wish to avoid cigarette smoke, placing a sign on the door will suffice in warnings where smoke may be encountered. When larger dangers exist in outdoor air the futility of smoking bans becomes laughable. Simple ideas do serve well if common sense and credible science were allowed to prevail. If smoking does cause such a degree of death and destruction, why has the government not banned it decades ago? Pot smoking was banned although no such dangers have been claimed allowing for the profits of organized crime to flourish while the cost of policing and incarcerations soared. Perhaps in keeping with the stability of government; respect needs to be maintained. In that light how could a government admit the causes of cancers and smoking related diseases might be actually more strongly related to other causes and Government actions. The identity of those causes might prove expensive to those really producing the devastation and to political support of those holding the bulk of the wealth and favors owed through philanthropy. If people started to realize how little control governments really have, many would question why should we continue to pay taxes or listen to the rule of law, when those laws are seen to be products for sale to the highest bidder.
Smokers need to wake up, the answer to their plight was there all along; start asking politicians how you could possibly defend such inhumane attitudes toward law abiding friends and neighbors in self gratuitous promotion of sin taxes and industry protections. If smoking is to be seen as not normal so too should government be forced to break a lot of their bad habits. It is time Political parties were sued for misleading advertising and be made to pay for the mishandling of Trillions of dollars over the years lining the pockets of their friends and reinventing the rules as they go. If they are not stopped and punished the problem will only grow regardless of who is at the helm. The Human rights commission refuses to acknowledge complaints have been made and by ignoring those complaints, they avoid what they know to be an indictable offense. Join the chorus and demand action keep up the pressure long enough and they will be forced to act, put the Canadian government on trial in front of the world.
Smokers beyond the value of theoretic research can show real sound evidentiary proof Tobacco plays a small role in what are claimed to be smoking related diseases despite what the current witch hunt slogans and ad agency preparations have inspired. For evaluation of the present, we can look to the proof in historical context to illustrate the huge inconsistencies in what is being promoted.
In the 1950s in the UK and later by the American surgeon general the claims Tobacco is the root cause of all major diseases in the industrialized world. With this in mind why was the industry allowed to grow while little complaint or restrictions of ingredients were established for the following 55 years? Has the Government been negligent in their duty to protection of it’s citizens or are they already aware the public perception in harm assessment is dead wrong? With the invention of smoking bans, no common sense or degree of intelligence can explain; with the levels of concentrations consumed, how can the danger to non-smokers be greater than the danger to smokers without considerable manipulation of scientific opinion? Too many inconsistencies with too little explanations beyond the attack of the curious as an industry, advocate while the ban fans consistently direct themselves to the benefit of the Tobacco industry while punishing the victims.
In the UK in 1954, this is what was determined;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,1147463,00.html - article_continue
“What is already known on this matter is that there has been an increase in deaths from lung cancer in this country which began in 1919 and has continued ever since. That increase is much greater in males than in female in 1931, the number of deaths attributed to lung cancer in England and Wales was1, 358 for males and 522 for females. In 1952, there were 11,981 male and 2,237 female deaths from this cause. The highest mortality from lung cancer in males occurred in the 65-74 age group while in females the highest rate occurred in the 75 and over age group. Comparable increases have been reported in all countries from which reliable statistics are available. Tobacco smoking plays some part in this increase but it is certain that it cannot be the only factor since the disease occurs in non-smokers. All that can be said at present is that there is a presumption that smoking may cause lung cancer. Furthermore, although the risk of contracting the disease appears to increase with the amount smoked, particularly of cigarettes, no reliable estimate can be made of the precise effect of smoking.�
Prior to 1919 UK lung cancer was almost nonexistent by 1931 we saw 880 deaths in the next 20 years deaths increased to 14,218 Smoking certainly existed long before 1919 no significant increase in use occurred after 1919 which could equate the dramatic rise in cancer. So why was there such a dramatic increase between 1931 and 1952 in 20 years such a huge increase certainly should have an identifiable and specific cause. Doll in his research originally investigated asphalt as a possible cause of the Cancer increases, he abandoned this in favor of Tobacco quite a segue considering good science seemed to be on the right track in perusing oil products consistent with the increase in use, they mirrored identically the increase in mortality. Smoking although they announced at the time was a significant contributing cause, something else was going on here. Doll could not know of the interaction in use of asbestos in cigarette filters or the dangers of Dioxins in the increasing use of chlorine in the infancy of the growing cigarette industries. An industry which if responsible for the increases in cancer was well behind the actual mortality growth if you consider the now determined 20-30 year lag between use and onset of disease. The decreases in Tobacco use since 1960 in fact a 2/3 reduction also lacked a resulting decrease in mortality. The first decrease in cancers ever in fact corresponds perfectly with the decrease in environmental Dioxins since 1986 with a 8.7 year half life the reductions right on target showed mirrored reductions in cancers in 2003. Smoking bans therefore are necessary to preserve the lie, as we will see additional reductions in cancers as Dioxin levels continue to decrease.
" Johnny the envelope please"; The hypocrites in New York who supported a smoking ban are well aware a spike in Cancers will occur there soon due to environmental Dioxins caused by the 911 tragedy. When the cancer cluster is seen, it will be explained as surprising or may not be reported at all. The bans will not result in smoking related reductions to the contrary if you watch the timelines those reductions will not occur until 15 years after the tragedy. The ban fans will of course take credit for the reductions and move the dates to suit their means. The fact Dioxins have never been identified as a cause of cancer in smoking tells us a lot. The public believes science has not found a link, with proof in hand smoking could cause cancer why the hesitation in showing the proof? The answer is more dangerous than the question so it suits the stakeholder’s purposes to keep the mystery alive. Simply banning the use of chlorine from cigarettes could have saved the lives of millions. The resistance and cover-up of Agent Orange disease to American troops and how hard those affected had to fight to be compensated says a lot as well. The major effect of Agent Orange was long term Dioxin poisoning. Smokers in a class action could similarly prove with good science how governments have allowed Cancers and smoking related diseases to continue without regulation simply to cover up the bigger lie; the cause of the majority of those so called smoking related diseases more correctly they should have been coined Oil related diseases. At minimum Dioxin related diseases, which are undoubtedly, the major causes of preventable death among those who smoke. This can be shown with sound reproducible science. No estimates of epidemiology studies were ever needed other than to cast doubt on the truth and mire those who really seek to protect health down in tar pits of bureaucracy designed to stop them.
When Doll made the link between smoking and cancers, it has to be questioned why he decided to change direction and the fact the scientific community has abandoned the link to petrochemical products and burning of oil in the 50-year span since. The link to smoking already established although not explained research dollars have been predominantly focused on the tobacco link while funding for the more obvious culprit has been scarce. It took 50 years of battling the medical community in fact for the American EPA to finally list Diesel fuel as a carcinogen although science had proven consistently the huge risk in inhaling fuel and burned fuel fumes. Epidemiology was not necessary to prove consistently in Petrie dish testing, the danger was extreme. Since that listing little public concern has been raised in avoiding a scientifically sound provable danger, primarily because the statistically insignificant proof of ETS has been promoted in fear mongering media purchases. Campaigns designed in order to save government the embarrassment of real proof they were deliberately increasing the death toll. Global warming tripe that seeks to reduce CO2 while ignoring NOX and SOX emissions are consistent with the planned ignorance and refusal to deal with real hazards to community. In an age of information, the facts are getting harder to hide under the rugs of irresponsible politicians who proudly chant the phrase “preventable deaths� while conveniently avoiding legislative measures, which could prevent them. Petrochemical industries still carry the big stick in directing government opinions. The same oil companies as participating NGOs at the World health Organization and through Philanthropy contribute to a lot of medical institutions and Charity medical foundations, have in effect bought themselves a free pass, allowing tremendous death and disease to be excused, in profiting from the media promoted ideals. Public perceptions created of announced goodwill donations and feel good awards ceremonies inventing societal heroes. Heroes such as Sir Doll or Heather Crow who received accolades not for service to society rather service to politicians and industries who are grateful for their efforts. Anti smoker advocates worldwide have in effect protected the Cigarette manufacturers and assured growing profits in lowering operating costs, increased value of the product and allowed no responsibility for health risks associated with sales of products with known unsafe ingredients. Anti smokers, consistently state there is no proof one tobacco could be safer than another despite growing restrictions and flue curing methods reducing the dangers of Tobacco. Additional ingredients are added without restriction or question of those claiming to be driven by the protection of others. Obviously, these lobbies have values that are more important in mind. If Hospitality workers were the targets of protections, how would their numbers compare to the amount of people, who smoke and could be protected significantly, with a few minor ingredient restrictions? With all the anti Tobacco research money, flowing for the past 55 years it is amazing no conclusions on the safety of the product or the manufacture of cigarette products have been discovered aside from “it is all unsafe�. The grouping of “all smoking� as opposed to individual products in a wide brush claim is irresponsible and could lead to embarrassment in legal proceedings with no clear description in what is being called tobacco smoke. Source of tobacco smoke is entirely relevant in deriving a risk. Which brands which ingredient mixtures and percentage of if any tobacco included has never been disclosed? The reality of those products; if made safer could in fact reduce many deaths, which of course would reduce the need for smoking bans or governments funding the chemical industry advocates. Attacking the victim while promoting the product as with smoking is an indefensible position.
Perhaps another look at the facts and the players would explain the discrepancies the fact Rockefeller was convicted of unfair business practices dividing standard oil into 4 companies did not limit the ability of those in the industry to continue with domination principles. The control of American medicine by the Rockefellers could add some understanding to the events. Historically what happened in the 20-year frame, which saw such a dramatic, increase in lung cancers, an increase which has not been explained for the following 50 years? The real cause had to be known yet was allowed to continue; smoking was most likely just a convenient scapegoat. The size and influence of the tobacco industry was after all dwarfed in comparison to the oil and auto industries. The Second World War happened in the 20-year interim. An increase of Industrialization and use of oil which has increased consistently since. Smoking neither in the 20 year time frame or the 20 year or 30 year periods before the increases in cancer saw smoking increases equating the increased disease. The Oil companies in fact with the invention and production of cars starting in the early 1900s and increasing slowly at first before the Second World War and enormously since 1931 combined with war machinery produced to fight the war could be the only scientifically sound explanation for the new cancer phenomenon.
If you ask an oncologist most would tell you exposure to gasoline fumes is the predominant cause of brain tumors yet not one of them would put it in writing for fear of being attacked by the oil companies. The known safe level of Benzene is one part per million in air yet in Gasoline one part per hundred is the norm. Gas storage tanks are vented without restriction in residential neighborhoods throughout North America. The self-serve gas bar has worked well for the oil companies in reducing risk to oil company workers and avoiding scrutiny by adjusting the numbers. Now most of the workers sit inside the building away from constant exposure to the fumes.
Good science can always discredit great propaganda. Some realization of the big picture could show a lot of us the solutions to the current fear and hate campaign of the tyrants in anti smoker advocacy.
FXR
Seperate article
International Embarasement
Please read the following review of the Federal Government 1999 internal audit. Compare the stated goals and rules as they apply to Health Canada's current strategies.. I believe great harm is being caused in financial loss and more importantly loss to credibility and respect for Government and scientific process at all levels as a direct result of current actions and a loss of direction by Health Canada.
This is a non-partisan issue and I am writing to explain the harm, in hopes all parties can identify my concerns and they may be dealt with in kind.
Best Regards;
Excerpt from the audit;
<>" Criteria related to the three audit objectives were communicated to the departments. Minimum baseline criteria for all departments included the expectation that departmental mandates and accountabilities were clearly defined, understood and delivered. Departments were expected to adhere to legislated and regulatory requirements as specified in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act , the Pest Control Products Act and the Fisheries Act and to have met policy and scientific commitments.
We expected departments to identify significant gaps and inconsistencies among mandates, legislation and policies and to have a means of addressing them. We expected that federal departments would co-ordinate their efforts in identifying needs and conducting scientific research and monitoring on toxic substances and that there would be effective two-way communication between the scientific and policy communities.
We also expected federal departments to have developed strategies for either life cycle management or virtual elimination of toxic substances and to have promoted the concept of pollution prevention in industry. We expected that risk management programs would be performance-based, with specific goals, measurable objectives and milestones. We expected the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to have developed a pesticide risk reduction policy as directed by the government in 1995. We also expected departments to have information on releases of toxic substances and pesticide use in order to identify priorities for action and to monitor progress in achieving reduction targets for toxic substance releases."
Clearly Social engineering through facts by consensus as an approved method of reducing harm to communities is a clear detour by the Federal Health Ministry from unified direction as presented in the internal audit from 1999 in an attempt to unify best practices and direction by harmonizing departments.
The Health ministry is determined to remain a rogue player and disregard the rules and direction employed through all other departments and ministries. In reviewing testimony at the Gomery Commission it is abundantly clear the risk "Social Engineering" principles may well exhibit in future Government initiatives.
The risks of; Party branding as a reward of media groups and undetected financial back room deals are extreme.
The loss of trust in the Nationalist institution in Quebec is clear indications of the net result of continued experiments of this nature.
Managing the Risks of Toxic Substances: Obstacles to Progress
Cracks in the Government house
4.53 Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency should identify specific substances subject to life cycle management, including C EPA toxic equivalents and other substances of concern. Each should develop and apply strategies for life cycle management by substance, sector and/or region.
4.54 Federal departments, including Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada, should each develop a plan for implementing the Toxic Substances Management Policy. Each plan should explicitly recognize and build upon the expertise and capabilities of the department, be consistent with the plans of other departments, and include clear statements of departmental accountability, specific goals and milestones.
Disregarding the rules established the Health Department continues to ignore the direction and rules in continual expressing it's independent opinion of Toxic harm.
Excessive Fat, Cigarette and pending Alcohol campaigns through the ministry of health demonstrates a refusal to administer the rules which clearly state a need to express levels of harm.
Simplifying the process by stating no safe levels exist is an avoidance of the legislated and regulatory requirements as specified in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Pest Control Products Act and the Fisheries Act
Harm to human health as described in the research provided to advertising agencies and presentations on the public websites which bears this out are not substantial or convincing. The risk of future embarrassment to the Government and process are not worthy of the goals. Certainly not in line with best practices as outlined in many discussions on the matter.
Individual contents of cigarette smoke for example are known to have safe levels well in excess of a description of "none".
Ad agencies do require a certain berth in expressing an attitude adjustment however the risk to government credibility should remain as paramount in purchasing these ads. The current social engineering process is detrimental to the public good as the endorsed denormalization plans seek to intimidate and demean identifiable sectors of the community to impose a will of the state. Clearly not in keeping with Canadian ethics and social values. Indeed continued efforts could well eliminate those same values the state is empowered to serve. The results of state interference in personal rights and those to property are very likely to be identified to be largely responsible for dramatic increases in violence as seen being expressed currently by the young across the nation. In France we can see the ultimate direction of a continued encroachments in this direction. The simple redefinition of public spaces planting a state footprint on privately held property deeds although not a principle concern yet can be seen as a huge imposition on immutability of rights to property. Property rights, are ominously absent in our constitution.
The ministry has failed to provide research, which clearly shows which toxic ingredients in tobacco smoke elevate the risk by such extreme, levels. Facts created by statistic or theoretic calculations and consensus of determined lobby groups affords no such proof a toxic element detrimental to public health truly exists. Working in co-operation with the Environment Ministry and known process in science. We would in show reality of irrefutable proof, or if harm does exist how relevant is the risk and what measures need to be taken to eliminate a public risk. Leaving this open to public vs. Lobby speculation does no service in expressing a real harm. Nor will it enhance sustainable public trust of the government to handle the affairs of the people. The exclusion of Professional opinions of science and medicine disrespect the work those groups have been doing in reducing public harm. Cherry picking those authorities and self-serving lobbyists that agree with a cause only exasperates the problem. The use of HIA intervention principles of domination, and shutting the public voice out of open discussions that may not evolve as planned is disrespectfully to the people and the institution of Governance.
The Federal department of Health needs to be brought into the realities of modern science and risk management principles. This deliberate avoidance of goals of sustainable development shows a clear lack of direction in keeping with stated goals. The refusal is a source of tremendous loss in credibility other departments seek to quell.
Avoidance should reflect on the minister an abandonment of best practices relying instead on facts by consensus principles demonstrates the minister is apparently not knowledgeable enough to take control of his own ministry and apply the rules of modernized management efforts.
The recent legionaires outbreak in Toronto and the report which followed showed a clear indication of how procedures break down by use of consensus strategies in real time emergencies. It will never be known how many could have been saved by simply utilizing science based methods from the onset in diagnosis and dealing with the disease.
From the conclusions;
3.2 Clarifying the responsibilities of different ministries and ensuring
consistent messages (i.e., making the Ministry of Health and
Long-Term Care responsible for establishing policy regarding the
appropriate infection prevention and control measures in an
outbreak and the Ministry of Labour responsible for enforcing and
ensuring compliance with that science-based policy)
3.3 Continuing to make effective use of the Provincial Infectious
Diseases Advisory Committee (PIDAC) and involving the
committee as early as necessary in an outbreak to help establish
the standard for infection prevention and control, explain the
science behind it, and provide expert advice throughout an
outbreak
3.4 Ensuring all health care organizations and providers receive
education on the importance of using appropriate, science-based
precautions and on the reason for different levels of precautions in
different practices.
The thorists can do little more than stand in the way of real work. Self serving Lobby groups (NGOs) have no place in real research and unbiased scientific discovery
Those who are competent and trained have served us well to date. leave your politics as with your religion in the cloakroom in consideration of others.
Many lives may depend on it.
posted by FXR @ 12:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home