Google analytics

Saturday, 5 April 2014

Smoking and cars

A bit late for this as I should be discussing plain packaging of cigarettes by now. But I thought my readers might be interested in this info graphic.

car smoke

I would like a volunteer from amongst the Anti-smoking fraternity to step up for this experiment. Don’t all run forward at once as my garage will only fit in about one hundred. (No pushing to the front of the queue, Debs Arnott).


  1. You might get 100 hypocrites to fill your garage out of 40 million non smokers who complain about second hand smoke that think car fumes aren't as dangerous...or maybe not, who knows!, i reckon about 6-8 would be a better guess.

    Filthy you seem to be a little outdated with your smoking propagander, that childlike graphic is a piss poor effort that dosen't make sense, but even worse is the fact that you mention "Anti smoking" for fucks sake its "Anti smokers".....its not the product or the act of smoking but an attack on people, and to top it all you you have posted second hand smoke is dangerous.

    Its not about health, its about bullying and spiteful bastards, a fucking experiment that suggests smoking and a popular suicide choice should be couldn't make it up..well you

    1. “Air pollution is a killer, more of a killer than obesity or passive smoking before the smoking ban. It kills indirectly, through heart attacks, lung infections and cancers. No one questions its devastating impact – here, it is estimated to cause 29,000 early deaths per year.”

      The Guardian, 3 April 2014

  2. This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  3. Methodist center tired of abuse from student smokers

    A decade-long battle over trash from smokers is still unresolved.

    “The last time we tried to enforce the ban, our building was tagged up,” Meneses said. “We are worried it will happen again if we try it.”

    She was referring to graffiti, which the center staff had to remove.

    Meneses said since the rise in cigarette smoking on the property, ways to clean up the litter have been in debate.

    “Unless campus provides a trash can, we are not going to do it (furnish a bin) because we don’t want to encourage the students to smoke here, but we want to stop the abuse,” Meneses said. “It’s a lose-lose situation.”

    At one time, SGA intended to create fliers to warn students of the smoking ban, though they claim students are informed in an orientation class.

    The staff of the Methodist Student Center continues to wait for a response to the problem from SAC administrators.

    Zeigler said today in a phone interview that he addressed the cigarette problem and acknowledged the administration has been aware of the situation.

    He said the difficulty is how to tackle the problem since the center is not a part of the college, though it serves the students of this campus.

    “We are working on a solution,” he said.

    Meneses said the center is waiting for that solution.

    “Until then, we will just have to take the abuse,” Meneses said.

    AKA Harleyrider1978 World renowned fighting anti-smoking Nazis!

  4. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''


    All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  5. Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

  6. Smoking Down - Cancer Up ................................. Average % Cigarette Smoking 1950s = 44% 2000s = 24% U. S. National Cancer Institute Manipulates Cancer Statistics... ...therefore we better see how cancer increase on statistics of Norway Cancer Research Cancer rates per 100 000 person 1956: male = 171,1 female = 163,7 2006: male = 362,2 female = 294,3 Lung, trachea (rates per 100 000 person) male (cancer increased in 3 times) 1956-60 = 11,7 2006-10 = 35,8 female (cancer increased in 10 times!) 1956-60 = 2,7 2006-10 = 25,1 .................................. 'Nearly 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012, are non-smokers.' .................................. 1. The mechanisms of cancer are not known. It is NOT possible to conclusively attribute a cause to effects whose mechanisms are not fully understood. 2. Lung cancer has 40 suspected concomitants, that is, 40 different suspected causes randomly interacting in different amounts for each individual. Though it is true that there is a prevalence of smokers among lung cancer patients, that may be due to the prevalence of other concomitants in the "smoking personality." If that is the case, quitting smoking would not affect the onset of lung cancer. And those who have quit smoking and reached an old age cannot claim that this is due to abstinence from tobacco. 3.The ever-present, endlessly repeated "facts" from the anti-tobacco groups and pharmaceutical industry are wholly mistaken when they say, "if it was not for smoking, lung cancer would be a very rare disease." Lung cancer IS a very rare disease. According to the WHO's own statistics, it affects less than 1% of the population. That means that lung cancer is a very rare disease even among smokers. .................. Please check the related links: 'For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.' 'Nicotine - The Zombie Antidote'

  7. The smog of war:

  8. That what i mean by smoking propagander, those Anon comments are smoking does not kill shite, the problem with this truth is that nobody has the bollocks to say or defend it in public, not one smoking lobbyist will apear on the media and spout smoking does not kill denial, and its all lies about smoking and its nothing to with health crap.

    Blogging is of course a different media where they can hide under false names and join cults where they convince themselves that every country in the world has it wrong about smoking.

    Not one blogger or self styled media stars from the pro smoking lobby will dare mutter one word about their denial that smoking kills and the conspiracy they believe is happening over smoking policies even though they appear on radio and television repeatedly throughout the year.

    Cowards ,fucking cowards and liars who haven't the bollocks to say in public with their real names shown what they believe.

    1. Can you provide proof of disease causation with end point connections! I thought not!

    2. " Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

      Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."



Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.