Lessons in Disinformation

[Vocalek]

Lesson 1: Misdirection

This is Slide #20 from a presentation by a Harvard professor to the FDA on dissolvable tobacco products. The goal of the slide is to make the audience believe that users of Camel dissolvables will be poisoned by heavy metal exposure. (Click the image to enlarge)



The entry off to the right provides what he tells the audience is the EPA estimate of dangerous levels of these substances -- 1 mg per gram.

Notice all those 3-digit numbers in the other columns. Scary, right?

Until you notice that these are expressed as nanograms per gram (ng/g).
1 milligram = 1 000 000 nanograms

Let's take the first value. A Camel mint orb contains 346 nanograms of Cadmium per gram of product, according to this slide.


According to Campaign for tobacco Free Kids (this must be true, because CTFK would never lie to us)
1 box of 15 “Pieces” = 0.12 oz.

We need to convert to grams here:
0.12 ounces = 3.40194278 grams

So, if you consumed an entire box of Camel orbs, you would be taking in (3.40194278 grams * 346 nanograms) 1177 nanograms of Cadmium. How does this compare to the EPA danger dose? Divide 1,000,000 by 1177 to discover that you'll need to consume nearly 850 boxes of product.

Let's take a closer look at the EPA danger warning.

Cadmium is classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable human carcinogen. This is based on studies of cadmium smelter workers who developed lung cancer after chronic inhalation exposure. However, cadmium has not been shown to cause cancer when ingested.

The EPA has also developed toxicity values to estimate the risk of developing cancer or other adverse health effects as a result of inhaling or ingesting cadmium. The toxicity value for estimating the risk of getting cancer is called a slope factor (SF), and the value for the non-cancer effect is called a reference dose (RfD). An SF is an estimate of the chance that a person exposed to the chemical will get cancer from in one milligram per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg-day), for a lifetime.

The inhalation SF for cadmium is based on studies of humans exposed to cadmium in the workplace and studies in animals. An RfD is an estimate of the highest dose that can be taken in every day without causing an adverse non-cancer effect. Oral RfDs for food and water, shown at right, were developed using a toxicokinetic model that relates cadmium intake to concentrations in the kidney.

Oral RfD: Water ---- Oral RfD: Food
0.0005 mg/kg-d -------0.003 mg/kg-d

http://hpschapters.org/northcarolina/NSDS/cadmium.pdf

So, let us assume that the intake from a box of Camel orbs is the same as taking it in from food, rather than from water. We need to convert the 1177 nanograms in a box of orbs to milligrams.
1177 nanograms = 0.001177 milligrams Cadmium per box

To reach a toxic level, you would need to consume 2.5 boxes per day for each kilogram of your body weight. This value was calculated by dividing the 0.003 mg/kg-d (Oral RfD: Food) value by 0.001177 mg per box.

Let's take an average weight of 150 pounds, which converts to 68 kg.

So all you'd need to consume would be (2.5 * 68) 170 boxes per day.

Piece of cake.

So the first piece of misdirection on this slide was to express the toxic value in one measurement, and the quantity in the product using a different measurement. Instead of telling us that Camel Mint Orbs deliver 346 nanograms per gram, the value should have been expressed as milligrams: 0.000346 milligrams per gram.

The second piece of misdirection on this slide is to give us a harm comparison for inhaled heavy metals, known full well that Camel dissolvable products are ingested, not inhaled.

 

[MagnusEunson]

For those interested in the rest of that slide set..

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Adviso...uctsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM265329.pdf

-Magnus

 

[Thulium]

Although the chart says that the toxic level of Cadmium is 1mg/g, you would need 12,566 Orbs, 12,750 Strips, or 8,394 Sticks to get 1mg of Cadmium.

 

[DC2]

This would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.

 

[Thulium]

Just found this tidbit on Cadmium poisoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (FWIW)

Cigarettes are also a significant source of cadmium exposure. Although there is generally less cadmium in tobacco than in food, the lungs absorb cadmium more efficiently than the stomach.

So...if you INHALE 8,394 Camel Sticks, it could be a problem. I'll make sure to not do that.

 

[Vocalek]

Ready for Lesson #2?

Name calling is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy. The negative connotation can also be conveyed by tone and/or volume. This propaganda technique attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes.

If you watched the recording of his presentation, you may have noticed that he delivered the first bullet in a sneering tone. Then he turned around and shouted the second bullet at the employees of tobacco companies in the back of the room. These were all scientists working on ways to make tobacco products safer, as opposed to executives that lied to congress, so his anger was highly misplaced IMHO.

Here's the slide. Click to enlarge.



I just noticed that he also employed the Testimonials propaganda technique. Testimonials are quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product or item.

"FDA's Question:" just before the second bullet implies that the FDA asked the question. I'd let it pass if he had worded it "The FDA should ask the question:" But I believe that he worded it as he did because he wanted to falsely imply that he had the full weight and authority of the agency behind him.

 

[Tom09]

Lesson 1: Misdirection

This is Slide #20 from a presentation by a Harvard professor to the FDA on dissolvable tobacco products. The goal of the slide is to make the audience believe that users of Camel dissolvables will be poisoned by heavy metal exposure.[...]
The entry off to the right provides what he tells the audience is the EPA estimate of dangerous levels of these substances -- 1 mg per gram.
Notice all those 3-digit numbers in the other columns. Scary, right?[...]

Hi Vocalek, I certainly share the impression that Connolly gave a highly deceptive presentation. However, I’m not sure if the case presented here about his heavy metals slide is actually correct. His slide #20 does present some EPA recommendatation for max. concentration of Cd in air. Although I could not verify the quoted value in a quick search on the EPA web page, I assume that Connolly is sort of true with his quote.
Now to the point: Connolly's slide #20 does read “Cadmium EPA 1 mg/g”. However, go back to watch the web cast of the presentation (time stamp ~ 2:00:05), when Connolly addressed the heavy metals slide. Note that he made a correction, stating something like “should be 1 ng/g not mg”. Appears to me as if this an actually corrected error in the printing of his slide, not a case of misrepresentation.
(Another question, though, would be why a gas standard should be applied to a solid product.)

 

[MagnusEunson]

Tom, I did't want to comment further than my post to the presentation but you started down the road so I'm going to follow..

First of all the slides nor the presentation talk much about comparative cadmium exposure or types of cadmium exposure (I won't even touch on other metals discussed). The EPAs "maximum" for cadmium in water is 5ppb (5 ng/g).. foods range up to 100ppb in general with some big staple foods like potatoes and rice having generally floated in the higher ranges. Analog cigarettes have ranges from 500ppb to 3000ppb.

More importantly is that your bodies resilience to cadmium inhaled is significantly less than that ingested (as noted above). At the exposure levels in food and water most people w/ decent iron levels will flush the cadmium out regularly enough.

With that said; sure reducing cadmium exposure ingested is all well and great but he isn't out there freaking out on eaters of brown rice or the Japanese (statistically significant increase in their cadmium intake these past three decades). While there are certainly measures to be taken and are being taken to reduce cadmium in the soil and food supply recent years have not shown the predicted massive uptick in renal failure cases.

So picking on dissolvable tobacco, especially without context to absorption pathways and other parallel exposures, is just to play nice with the target crowd..

Oh, and the 1 ng/g comment is silly since he should know damn well we'd end up pulling a ton of the food supply off the market. How much healthier and happy would society be without enough food? And rising prices? Again? -Magnus


EDIT: I completely forgot to mention the 1mg/g still seems to be a norm for current studies on toxicity and not a standard per-se that results in mandatory action. And those high-level toxicity tests show 5% and less absorption through gastrointestinal pathways.