Deceit or Incompetence?-part 6

This will become the stated policy of the state of Illinois!


AN ACT concerning public health.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:

Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Smoke
Free Illinois Act.

Section 5. Findings. The General Assembly finds that
tobacco smoke is a harmful and dangerous carcinogen to human
beings and a hazard to public health. Secondhand tobacco smoke
causes at least 65,000 deaths each year from heart disease and
lung cancer according to the National Cancer Institute.
Secondhand tobacco smoke causes heart disease, stroke, cancer,
sudden infant death syndrome, low-birth-weight in infants,
asthma and exacerbation of asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia in
children and adults. Secondhand tobacco smoke is the third
leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
Illinois workers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke are at
increased risk of premature death. An estimated 2,900 Illinois
citizens die each year from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

The General Assembly also finds that the United States
Surgeon General's 2006 report has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

and that scientific evidence that secondhand smoke causes

serious diseases, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses such as
bronchitis and asthma, is massive and conclusive.


These people are guilty of either willfull deceit and fraud or are
quilty of gross incompetence.

Either way; they should be removed from office,tarred and feathered
and kicked out if the state!!!!!

http://uk.ihs.com/news/newsletters/ohsis/ohsis-jun06-th...ssessments-public-sm
In the English Parliament:

This report, by The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, Government Policy on the Management of Risk, examines Government and public attitudes to risk.

Passive Smoking
On passive smoking and the coming ban on smoking in public places, the Committee, while recognising the well-established health risks of smoking, argue that the risks associated with passive smoking do not justify a ban. They say that the aims of the legislation have not been made clear and that greater attention should have been given to the scientific evidence, which suggests that passive smoking in public places is a relatively minor problem compared with passive smoking within the home.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm
CRS Report for Congress Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk
November 14, 1995

Congressional Research Service/The Library of Congress

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for the Congress, conducting research, analyzing legislation, and providing information at the request of committees, Members, and their staffs.
The Service makes such research available, without partisan bias.

INTRODUCTION
In testimony before a Senate subcommittee, CRS concluded that "the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking."
9 In their report, Cigarette Taxes to Fund Health Care Reform: An Economic Analysis (CRS Report 94-214 E, March 8, 1994), J.G. Gravelle and D. Zimmerman reviewed estimates of the economic costs that smokers impose on nonsmokers. The report reviewed the evidence of a passive smoking health risk because this is a potential component of the cost calculation. It concluded that (i) the evidence that passive smoking causes disease is far less certain than for active smoking, and (ii) the health costs of these potential passive smoking effects, if any, are likely to be quite small.

Researchers have used nicotine measurements to calculate ETS exposure in terms of cigarette equivalents, by estimating the number of cigarettes one would have to smoke to receive the same amount of nicotine as breathing ETS in a particular environment for a given period of time. For example, the amount of nicotine inhaled by a nonsmoker working in a relatively smoky restaurant for eight hours is equivalent to smoking one-eighth of a cigarette.

Thus; impartial groups in both the British and U.S. governments do not find that exposure to SHS at any level is a harmful.

You might ask how this can be since there are poisonous toxic chemicals in SHS. Let’s consider one of the toxins in SHS, that is ARSENIC.

Arsenic can be a deadly poison. The EPA and FDA set levels on the amount of arsenic that can be in the water we drink and the food we eat.

The EPA safe level for arsenic in drinking water is 10 ppb.

The FDA safe level for arsenic chicken is 500 ppb.

The FDA safe level for arsenic in eggs is 500ppb. The FDA safe level for arsenic in pork is 500 ppb.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/arsenic/standards_regulations.html



10ppb allows for 10 nanograms(billionths of a gram) of arsenic to be present in one gram of “safe” drinking water.



500 ppb allows for 500 nanograms of arsenic to be present in one gram of “safe” chicken or egg.


500 ppb allows for 500 nanograms of arsenic to be present in one gram of "safe" pork.

10 nanograms per gram equates to about 2,264 nanograms of arsenic in an eight-ounce glass of water.

500 nanograms per gram equates to about 226,400 nanograms of arsenic in one pound of chicken breast.

500 nanograms per gram equates to about 226,400 nanograms of arsenic in one pound of eggs. 500 nanograms per gram equates to about 226,400 nanograms of arsenic in one pound of pork.

According to a study done for the Mass. Dept of Public Health, the total smoke output(both mainstream and sidestream) for an average cigarette contained 32 nanograms of arsenic.

The 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study. Final Report 07/24/00



The amount of allowable arsenic in a the recommended eight glasses of water a day is about equal to the total amount of arsenic in 566 cigarettes.

The amount of allowable arsenic in one pound of chicken or eggs is equal to the total amount of arsenic in 7,075 cigarettes. The amount of allowable arsenic in one pound of pork is equal to the total amount of arsenic in 7,075 cigarettes.

If we drank the recommended amount of water per year, the arsenic in that water would be equal to all of the arsenic in 1,652,720 cigarettes.


We consume 81.2 pounds of chicken per year; this is equal to the total arsenic in the smoke of 574,490 cigarettes per year.

http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=80529



We consume 32 pounds of eggs per year. This is equal to the total arsenic in the smoke of 226,400 cigarettes per year .



We consume 48 pounds of pork per year. This is equal to the total arsenic in 339,600 cigarettes per year.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104742.html


To get the same amount of arsenic as is allowably safe in the water he drinks and in some of the foods he eats in a year, a smoker would have to smoke and inhale all of the smoke in 2,793,210 cigarettes!!

That is smoking and inhaling all of the smoke from 38.2 cartons of cigarettes per day.

The Congressional Research Service stated that a non-smoking waitress working in a smoky restaurant is exposed to SHS equal to 1/8th of a cigarette per 8 hour shift. That is 5/8th(.62%) of a cigarette per week.

The average smoker smokes a pack a day or 140 cigarettes per week. That non-smoking waitress is exposed to 1/226th of that amount.

To get the same amount of arsenic as is in the "safe" food and water she consumes,that waitress would have to be exposed to 2,793,210 x 226 = 631,265,460 cigarettes per year!

If she never took a vacation, she would work 260 shifts per year. This means that she would have to be exposed to 2,427,944 cigarettes per shift to reach that equal amount of arsenic.

A restaurant patron who dines out twice a week and stays for one hour per visit would be exposed to 1/20th the SHS of that waitress.


To get the same amount of arsenic as is in the "safe" food and water they consume,they would have to be exposed to 631,265,460 cigarettes x 20 = 12,625,309,200 cigarettes per year!!

That is 12.6 Billion cigarettes.

If they dined out 52 weeks a year, that is 104 hours of exposure to SHS,they would have to be exposed to the smoke from 121,397,204 cigarettes each visit.

It is not surprising that a committee of The House of Lords and The Congressional Research Service found there to be no health hazard from exposure to SHS.

Anyone that states "There is no safe level of exposure to SHS", is guilty of either an astounding capacity for being ignorant or an astounding capacity for deceit and lies.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30,

Excellent post. This needs to be sent to every Anti/Fascist politician in the country.

quote:

To get the same amount of arsenic as is allowably safe in the water he drinks and in some of the foods he eats in a year, a smoker would have to smoke and inhale all of the smoke in 2,793,210 cigarettes!!

That is smoking and inhaling all of the smoke from 38.2 cartons of cigarettes per day.

Excellent.
Could we convince a moderator to compile all six parts of this series into a single thread.
Extremely helpful when you can equate the relative dangers that are really involved here.

There is one part left, am working on the 65,000 deaths per year caused by exposure to SHS.

This will include a bit about the number of deaths(slow and lingering),due to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease, that would occur if all smokers stopped smoking due to bans.

Gary K.

Did anyone notice Mayor Bloomberg's comments on the asbestos that exploded into the air yesterday during the rush hour?

No need for alarm or concern.

Reminds me of the comments made about the toxcity of the air in New York around ground zero.

Yes, Bruce, and last year remember that big stink that was over NYC that seemed to be wafting from New Jersey, but noone ever knew for sure. Same thing, "no cause for alarm or concern."

Yeah, No need for alarm or concern. Just don't light up a cigarette. I could have a heart attack within 30 seconds! I don't remember where, but I recently read an idiotic article by someone who claims that just ONE NIGHT spent in a bar could give a nonsmoker lung cancer.....

Have you ever thought of what you could catch after one night in a hospital?