Litigation is about to become the next, huge growth industry.

Epidemiology is based in the acceptable level of risk as a baseline for comparisons in 1x 10^-4 or one of ten thousand This level can no longer be considered valid in the absence of linearity which established valid cause and effect principles. With no baseline for calculations how valid can we consider the calculations at all, in the face of substantially higher risks now accepted internationally as the basis for smoking ban and child abuse initiatives.

In Canada it is accepted by Health Canada; Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS in unknown exposure levels causes the deaths of 100 children annually. The statistical association required in a 32 million population and the precision of those numbers demonstrates irrefutably a new acceptable risk factor well beyond the previous one in ten thousand standard. Due to this fact previous assessments and measurements in environmental toxins are proven invalid and of no protection to the population base whatsoever. Even the much higher 3000 ETS deaths in a 32 million population is beyond the previous acceptable risk in a population base standard for epidemiological assessments. Media presentations of Healthcare professionals depicting a statistical rise from 1 to 1.3 in comparative studies as a 30% increased risk establishes any increase no matter how small, or regardless of allowances for errors and confounding effects as unacceptable risk in our new no safe level exists standard.

In the assessment of ventilation technologies in critical review of the Burswood Casino, James Repace stated in his opinion with a level of RSP existing at a high average of 250 Micrograms per cubic meter of air the level was known to be 10,000 times the known safe level in air water and food according to the American EPA. This established proof of a widely accepted fact, the direct inhalation at that level made Environmental Tobacco smoke much more deadly than direct inhalation of Benzene, Chlorine or even Dioxins at previously believed to be known safe levels. In fact few toxins or carcinogens are known which would prove to be more deadly than second hand smoke. The levels of inhaled primary smoke while diluted by only one half liter of air in combination with coincidental exposures to ETS inhaled by a smoker as opposed a full cubic meter of air dilatant or 2000 half liter inhalations were also exceeded in the assessment of harm. Non smoker half liter inhalations, averaged at 10 inhalations per minute and 2400 litters per 8 hour day 1.4 cubic meters per non smoker. Total non smoker inhalations per 8 hour day can be seen to be approximately 375 micrograms RSP [Respiratory smoke particulate]. When you consider the levels of exposure in 1960 before the drastic reductions in primary smoking and unrestricted exposures to the smoke at or away from work and the resulting consequences we have to accept the smoke is becoming more dangerous or the no safe level assessments are indeed valid, dashing all possibilities of linear association. Biological plausibility was lacking in assessing the epidemiologic calculations however the general scientific and medical communities have accepted the theories of venturing beyond association but now establishing causation of disease in non linear proportions resulting from exposures, valid in thousands of public statements by scientific and medical experts globally. This allowed Stanton Glanz the berth of the incredible statement he made recently "Secondhand smoke doubles our risk of breast cancer. The risk you run to go smokefree? Zero."

Now we have created a much larger problem in order to substantiate a plausible level of risk to this proportion we have to dismiss all previous linearity theories. The Heather Crowe case in which a hospitality worker in Canada based on expert testimony establishing cause and effect, with no levels of inhalation or exposures to confounders known and despite the fact fellow employees with the same or higher levels of exposure did not contract cancer due to exposure. The result; linearity is now legally known to be invalid.

The Pandora’s box now open invalidates environmental testing and known safe levels in all potentially toxic exposures by comparison. How could that same compensation board now reject claims of workplace exposures of any toxin at any level resulting in an associated disease with any level of association? Beyond that how can we ever successfully prosecute environmental damages with no valid science with which to establish evidence? When successfully argued to a supreme court decision, this would have the potential to bankrupt every insurance company and workers compensation board on the planet and bog down all the courts with damage claims for decades. The tobacco industry can now enhance their chances to win any claim of damages, with a simple question of an expert brought forward to establish tobacco caused a specific harm. Do you believe Linearity in cause and effect is valid?, the response is a no win situation. Damned if you do and Damned if you don’t. The American EPA decision can be held high as proof in deciding to classify ETS as a deadly carcinogen in the absence of plausible Biological and Timeline observations, as the champion of industries who can now avoid prosecution or at very least make those prosecutions much more difficult to achieve.

Use of the same American government standards has created new theories with similar basis to blossom in battling Obesity pandemics and calculations which validify total population inoculations in place of as per need in dealing with known to be rare Papa Loma virus inspired uterine cancers. A new reality is emerging in medical knowledge we will eventually know how credible the experts remain, as an effect of timeline observations. This would of course be dependant on the continued ability to sustain consensus or political science in media presentations indefinitely.

References

James Repace et al;

http://www.acosh.org/art/critical_evaluation.pdf

Stanton Glanz et al;

http://www.ucsf.edu/its/listserv/stanglantz-l/0516.html

Protection of the new non linear standard at the American EPA allowed them to reject research with a Biological assay.

Et al DR. George D. Thurston, Sc. D.

http://www.cleanairstandards.org/filemanager/download/156/EPA_GDT_testimony061.doc

et al, The American Lung Association

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060326/NEWS06/603260403/1083/LIVING01

Media presentations

http://www.cleanairstandards.org/article/articleview/464/1/41/

Research attributed to the professional oversight of Dr. Neil Coleshaw of Doctors for a smoke free planet, during his employment at the World Health Organization. The research failed to express the actual precision of risk now accepted and expressed in non linear standards.

http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;90/19/1440

Today a new reality unfolds simply being exposed to ETS is unacceptable risk, regardless of the level or duration of that exposure With the new gold standard in place; one wonders as we eventually eliminate all toxins and carcinogens from our environment, if any manufacturer or civilization itself can survive the onslaught of ad agency created fear as a basis for future litigation

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/OttawaAndRegion/2006/06/14/1630890-sun.html