A) If THS is, even remotely an issue (like even slightly), I say prepare for THV to be a similar issue.
B) From the Abstract of the study, it says (and I laugh), "Secondhand smoke (SHS) is intrinsically more toxic than directly inhaled smoke." To stop me from laughing, or poking fun at this, I'm open to anyone supporting this claim that truly seems like news to me.
- Added: From all the links that allegedly back up this claim, I honestly came up with zero support. Moreover, in the abstract, this point is made (and not backed up, from what I can find): "the accumulation of SHS on environmental surfaces that ages with time, becoming progressively more toxic."
C) Also from the abstract (unless otherwise linked):
- Funding: This work was funded by Tobacco Research Disease Related Program (TRDRP) grant
- History of TRDRP
- In 1988, California voters approved Proposition 99, The Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 1988, which instituted a 25¢ per pack cigarette surtax.
- 5¢ of each dollar collected supports critical tobacco-related research.
- The Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP) funds research that enhances understanding of tobacco use, prevention and cessation, the social, economic and policy-related aspects of tobacco use, and tobacco-related diseases in the State of California.
- TRDRP is administered by the University of California and is one of three state agencies that work together towards the vision of a tobacco-free California.
- Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
D) I'm 99% certain that if BT used funds derived from tobacco sales to promote research for a 'tobacco-rich California' and reached 'scientific' conclusions that supported its general view (use tobacco products responsibly for enjoyment), that it would be shot down in nanoseconds due to 'competing interest.' But here we have funding for a study, based entirely on sales of tobacco products, to support a position that tobacco-free groups would just luvvvvvvvvvv to become part of the American Lexicon.
E) I reiterate what I said in point (A) as I think it deserves emphasis
F) From 4th footnote (link of View Article) on the abstract: "Catherine Armstrong, a spokeswoman for British American Tobacco, says, [This work] did not study any health outcomes. As the authors themselves note, more research is needed before conclusions on possible health hazards can be drawn. That research is about to start. The California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which is funded by the California tobacco tax, recently made US$3.75 million of funding available for studying THS and cigarette .... waste."
And later from this same supplemental article that I'm selectively quote mining from, "Regardless of whether THS is conclusively shown to cause illnesses, it is already changing attitudes, behaviors, norms, expectations, purchasing behavior, and the economic value of personal property and real estate, Matt says. In combination, these are powerful factors that have the potential to reduce tobacco use and lower the health risks associated with smoking itself as well as SHS and THS exposure."
G) As I just now added bullet point item to (B), I am going to say what I've said before, which is it is entirely amazing, nay a miracle, that humanity on the North American continent was able to survive this period (circa 1920's to 1980's) where 40% of the population literally smoked everywhere (indoors and outdoors). Perhaps now, even more amazing (if that's possible) that any of us are living past the age of 11, given just how utterly toxic, or progressively toxic, third-hand smoke particles are. If people smoked literally everywhere, and humans are found in those places years later, exposed to infinitely more toxic particles, then it is as amazing to me as dropping a hydrogen bomb on a heavily populated city and most people surviving. Never mind the historical fact that the population actually increased during the years that people smoked everywhere.
I like discussing the myths of our opposition. Makes for fascinating discussion to realize the lengths for which their propaganda is designed to go and to influence the
children rest of society. Won't anyone think of the
children rest of society?
Tomorrow maybe?
