Hecht Study, vaper biomarkers similar to non-smokers

[Kent C]

Yet apparently insurance companies are still testing for cotinine, which shows up in anyone who uses nicotine in any form -- thus punishing the quitters as much as the smokers. And it's total BS that smokers cost more, since they often die much younger than those who quit, so it's entirely punitive.

Andria

And from the workshop thread in Regulation.. not sure if you followed that one Andria....

My post:
Their (@1:30-2:00pm) discussion of dual uses poses huge problems with biomarkers - how to differentiate those from cigarette smoking vs vaping. One comment by Hecht, in general regarding the numerous types of ecigs available now and dual use:

"I mean clearly as I try to design our program, we've always known that scientific challenges involved here way too big for us to tackle."

The problem with identifying biomarkers for vaping is dual use. How can one say the cotinine is from a cigarette or ecig? Plus the trace amounts of 'toxins' in ecigs are really hard to tag and read. ANTZ can say there are toxins but

 

[AndriaD]

And from the workshop thread in Regulation.. not sure if you followed that one Andria....

My post:
Their (@1:30-2:00pm) discussion of dual uses poses huge problems with biomarkers - how to differentiate those from cigarette smoking vs vaping. One comment by Hecht, in general regarding the numerous types of ecigs available now and dual use:

"I mean clearly as I try to design our program, we've always known that scientific challenges involved here way too big for us to tackle."

The problem with identifying biomarkers for vaping is dual use. How can one say the cotinine is from a cigarette or ecig? Plus the trace amounts of 'toxins' in ecigs are really hard to tag and read. ANTZ can say there are toxins but

I've somewhat followed it. The problem there is the "gov't speak" which seems to bear no resemblance to any rational application of language. Anytime I encounter it, the only impression I get from it is "those people are stark raving lunatics."

Essentially, since THEY have problems with it, everyone who uses nicotine must bear the burden of their ignorance, which removes a good deal of incentive for quitters. Stark raving looneytoons, in the face of their *stated* goal of getting people to quit -- just like ALL this agitation against e-cigs, in the face of that stated goal. There's only so much total insanity and/or avarice I can deal with before I have to just turn it off. It's just too bad we can't turn THEM off.

Andria

 

[plumeguy]

This has a odor similar to past laws banning interracial marriage to
protect children. Hecht should be equally celebrated for tirelessly working
to ban something to protect children without being hindered by nit-picky
scientific data. Including his own.

 

[AndriaD]

This has a odor similar to past laws banning interracial marriage to
protect children. Hecht should be equally celebrated for tirelessly working
to ban something to protect children without being hindered by nit-picky
scientific data. Including his own.

You mean... he should be tarred and feathered, and then burnt at the stake?

Andria

 

[nicnik]

Take your pick...

The April 1977 one is a fake. Are any of the others fakes?

 

[skoony]

The April 1977 one is a fake. Are any of the others fakes?

what makes you say it's fake?
they did regional covers when they
thought it would help sales.
regards
mike

 

[nicnik]

The April 1977 one is a fake. Are any of the others fakes?

I did some more reading about this. The other 1977 covers were real, (EDIT: The other 1970's covers were real) but were not about any predictions of a looming ice age. The subject was the energy crisis, and the shortages of fuel for heating, etc.

There was an article in Time and one in Newsweek (and lots of other media) promoting the views of a small minority of scientists' warning of global cooling, but theories of global warming were more prevelant. It wasn't a full-blown media frenzy, but I remeber how it was brought up a lot in all sorts of conversations. I had no idea at the time, that it was just crazy media antics. I probably assumed it reflected the scientific community's view, and I guess many other people did, too.

Very interesting how even back then, the media was misbehaving much like they do today, like they do with all the phony vaping scare stories.

 

[nicnik]

what makes you say it's fake?
they did regional covers when they
thought it would help sales.
regards
mike

Here's what Time magazine says about it:
TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake | TIME.com

Lots of corroborating info elswhere.

 

[Katya]

Here's what Time magazine says about it:
TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake | TIME.com

Lots of corroborating info elswhere.

Even if the cover was a hoax, the articles were not. There were many, many of them warning about the global cooling in the 70s.

Time:

Another Ice Age? - TIME

Newsweek:

Newsweek on the cooling world

The Washington Post:

Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age

The Christian Science Monitor:

The Christian Science Monitor Historic Archive

 

[nicnik]

Even if the cover was a hoax, the articles were not. There were many, many of them warning about the global cooling in the 70s.

Time:

Another Ice Age? - TIME

Newsweek:

Newsweek on the cooling world

The Washington Post:

Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age

The Christian Science Monitor:

The Christian Science Monitor Historic Archive

Yeah, the media was out of control, even back then. They sure were misrepresenting what the thinking was among the scientists on that issue. My perception was that the public by and large believed it. I don't remeber me ever doubting it back then, and I didn't exactly trust the media (or much of any authority) in those days.

I could see where those stories would sell magazines. It not only sounded scary, but it was fun to discuss, fitting in with all the other chaos of the times.

 

[AndriaD]

Even if the cover was a hoax, the articles were not. There were many, many of them warning about the global cooling in the 70s.

Time:

Another Ice Age? - TIME

Newsweek:

Newsweek on the cooling world

The Washington Post:

Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age

The Christian Science Monitor:

The Christian Science Monitor Historic Archive

I was doing some reading on this subject yesterday, since I'm so puzzled about the whole issue.

Apparently we are IN what is considered an "ice age," ("Quaternary") due to the ice sheets covering both poles, but currently in a phase called "interglatial," which signifies that it's warm enough that the ice sheets have retreated TO the poles. From what little I read, apparently we WOULD currently be heading into another "ice age", out of the "interglatial" phase, but for the warming caused by the industrial revolution (since the 18th century!)

So, the warming due to fossil fuels is actually helping us; the problem is, if we don't rein it in a bit, instead of it continuing to grow, THEN we might have a "global warming" *problem* to deal with.

But even I was way off, when I said 10,000 yrs.... climate is more on the order of 40,000-100,000 yrs. You cannot just look at the weather and decide that the climate is changing -- it happens much too slowly for humans to perceive or measure.

Andria

 

[nicnik]

I was doing some reading on this subject yesterday, since I'm so puzzled about the whole issue.

Apparently we are IN what is considered an "ice age," ("Quaternary") due to the ice sheets covering both poles, but currently in a phase called "interglatial," which signifies that it's warm enough that the ice sheets have retreated TO the poles. From what little I read, apparently we WOULD currently be heading into another "ice age", out of the "interglatial" phase, but for the warming caused by the industrial revolution (since the 18th century!)

So, the warming due to fossil fuels is actually helping us; the problem is, if we don't rein it in a bit, instead of it continuing to grow, THEN we might have a "global warming" *problem* to deal with.

That was a very good summary of the info I read today.

But even I was way off, when I said 10,000 yrs.... climate is more on the order of 40,000-100,000 yrs. You cannot just look at the weather and decide that the climate is changing -- it happens much too slowly for humans to perceive or measure.

Andria

If you're to believe the scientists, they have some incredible technology for measuring these days. I guess that's a big if. Corrupt ANTZy scientists add to the confusion, in making it more difficult to put trust in scientists. What are we to believe?

The TC Cult's contamination of science must be stopped. It's thoroughly destructive, even beyond smoking issues.

 

[AndriaD]

That was a very good summary of the info I read today.


If you're to believe the scientists, they have some incredible technology for measuring these days. I guess that's a big if. Corrupt ANTZy scientists add to the confusion, in making it more difficult to put trust in scientists. What are we to believe?

The TC Cult's contamination of science must be stopped. It's thoroughly destructive, even beyond smoking issues.

The problem isn't the equipment; the problem is the scale -- which is why it's difficult for us to come to grips with quantum physics, which deals either with the EXTREMELY large or INFINITESIMALLY small -- neither scale is comfortable for humans; our minds just don't work at those scales, normally speaking. We can get clues from geology and fossilized flora and fauna, but real measurements? Humans were around 100,000 yrs ago, but they thought the weather was caused by the gods.

Climate scale is almost like geologic scale; anything less than 40,000-100,000 yrs and you're talking about weather, not climate; geologic time is more like millions than 10s or 100s of thousands.

Andria

 

[nicnik]

The problem isn't the equipment; the problem is the scale -- which is why it's difficult for us to come to grips with quantum physics, which deals either with the EXTREMELY large or INFINITESIMALLY small -- neither scale is comfortable for humans; our minds just don't work at those scales, normally speaking. We can get clues from geology and fossilized flora and fauna, but real measurements? Humans were around 100,000 yrs ago, but they thought the weather was caused by the gods.

Climate scale is almost like geologic scale; anything less than 40,000-100,000 yrs and you're talking about weather, not climate; geologic time is more like millions than 10s or 100s of thousands.

Andria

My use of the word "technology" wasn't meant to only represent equipment. Like I said, "if you believe". It's hard to know what to believe.

Anyway, interesting info you've added here. Seems that you've maybe explored these issues more than I have.

 

[Kent C]

Very interesting how even back then, the media was misbehaving much like they do today, like they do with all the phony vaping scare stories.

All they do is follow certain leftists around and quote them.

Paul Ehrlich and the current 'Science Czar' John Holdren wrote a book together predicting global cooling.... along with other scare stories about overpopulation - none of their predictions have come even close. Now both are global warm-mongers.

John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely · zomblog

Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions

Notable & Quotable: Global Cooling - WSJ

Rearview: Paul Ehrlich; Global Cooling | The SPPI Blog

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/?_r=0

 

[AndriaD]

My use of the word "technology" wasn't meant to only represent equipment. Like I said, "if you believe". It's hard to know what to believe.

Anyway, interesting info you've added here. Seems that you've maybe explored these issues more than I have.

Weather has always fascinated me -- when I first got cable TV, I'd sit glued to the weather channel all the time. That was when I first moved to MI, so it started as my southerner's need to know when and how much snow was coming. But I got totally sucked in; now all weather issues fascinate me. I've always thought how odd it is that the first day of summer, astronomically speaking, is usually a much cooler time than 6 wks down the road, and vice-versa, for winter -- we don't GET real winter here till sometime in Jan/Feb; I've had roses blooming all the way to Xmas.

Andria

 

[skoony]

Here's what Time magazine says about it:
TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake | TIME.com

Lots of corroborating info elswhere.

according to times own records,neither cover is real.
The TIME Magazine Vault
editops its a doctored 2007 cover.
not that there wasn't a lot of scare mongering
going on back in the 70's.
Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

according to times own records,neither cover is real.
The TIME Magazine Vault
editops its a doctored 2007 cover.
not that there wasn't a lot of scare mongering
going on back in the 70's.
Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

regards
mike

And on one site someone tried to say that it was 'Newsweek' not 'Time' but both had global cooling articles. And those same advocates noted in my post above were as scaremongering as much as they now do with global warming. All the 'predictions' made, never happened, in fact, in the 'bet with Julian Simon that Paul Ehrlich had' all commodity prices that Ehrlich predicted to 'rise substantially' fell substantially. The predictions that millions of people would die of starvation, etc. from cooling or overpopulation also didn't happen, but it seems like the more these guys are wrong, the higher in esteem, they are held by the Left. Sagan was also in on the global cooling

And global cooling is making a comeback:

Blog: Scientists warning of global cooling once again!

"However, if this is the new political viewpoint of the environmental commissars, it raises a big question about global warming. Will the two cancel each other out? If we are in danger of global cooling, don't we need some global warming to balance it, and shouldn't we therefore encourage the burning of fossil fuels? In that case should we not penalize renewable energy companies (wind and solar) with a non-carbon tax, to penalize them for not helping to make the globe warmer?"

If this is the case, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the climate change 'experts' will push for more socialist programs and more regulation.

 

[AndriaD]

If this is the case, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the climate change 'experts' will push for more socialist programs and more regulation.

Of course they will, it's their bread and butter -- they think nothing exists that can't be somehow made better by regulating it to death and costing taxpayers another bleeding fortune.

Up with Anarchy!

Andria