New Thread

I’m too busy right now to write anything. So here’s an empty thread for you to talk among yourselves.

I think the CATCH debate may have come to a halt for the time being. Rich will be busy. And Chris indicated in an email a day or two back that he might have made his last submission. And I’m in process of moving.

Apologies if I’ve not replied to emails.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to New Thread

  1. richwhite09 says:

    Hopefully it’ll start up in the New Year, there’s some really interesting stuff coming to light and more people are joining in.
    Good luck with the move Frank, hope it all goes to plan.

  2. richwhite09 says:

    Hopefully it’ll start up in the New Year, there’s some really interesting stuff coming to light and more people are joining in.
    Good luck with the move Frank, hope it all goes to plan.

  3. richwhite09 says:

    Hopefully it’ll start up in the New Year, there’s some really interesting stuff coming to light and more people are joining in.
    Good luck with the move Frank, hope it all goes to plan.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Frank,you wouldnt be moving to the netherlands would ya? Ehh!

  5. Anonymous says:

    Frank,you wouldnt be moving to the netherlands would ya? Ehh!

  6. Anonymous says:

    Frank,you wouldnt be moving to the netherlands would ya? Ehh!

  7. Anonymous says:

    1)I’m sorry I came to this discussion late
    2) I’m sorry Chris won’t be participating anymore(true? or just not submitting). I would have enjoyed discussing these issues with him.
    3) It’s a busy time for all right now (the holiday season) but I would enjoy continuing the discussion if anyone has new/alternate ideas about causes of LC.
    GDF

  8. Anonymous says:

    1)I’m sorry I came to this discussion late
    2) I’m sorry Chris won’t be participating anymore(true? or just not submitting). I would have enjoyed discussing these issues with him.
    3) It’s a busy time for all right now (the holiday season) but I would enjoy continuing the discussion if anyone has new/alternate ideas about causes of LC.
    GDF

  9. Anonymous says:

    1)I’m sorry I came to this discussion late
    2) I’m sorry Chris won’t be participating anymore(true? or just not submitting). I would have enjoyed discussing these issues with him.
    3) It’s a busy time for all right now (the holiday season) but I would enjoy continuing the discussion if anyone has new/alternate ideas about causes of LC.
    GDF

  10. Anonymous says:

    It is regrettable that there are not more people joining and adding their thoughts.
    Perhaps a closer investigation of various industries could provider alternative causal factors for the increase in lung cancer.
    One example might be the work force working with chromium. Although chromium III is too big to enter the nucleus of cells; chromium VI, however, is small enough to do so. The reduction of chromium VI produces a very unstable intermediate, chromium IV, which is thought to be responsible for DNA aberrations.
    Adding to this the unknown factors of biological variation we might begin to see a number of factors necessary for the manifestation of any cancer.

  11. Anonymous says:

    It is regrettable that there are not more people joining and adding their thoughts.
    Perhaps a closer investigation of various industries could provider alternative causal factors for the increase in lung cancer.
    One example might be the work force working with chromium. Although chromium III is too big to enter the nucleus of cells; chromium VI, however, is small enough to do so. The reduction of chromium VI produces a very unstable intermediate, chromium IV, which is thought to be responsible for DNA aberrations.
    Adding to this the unknown factors of biological variation we might begin to see a number of factors necessary for the manifestation of any cancer.

  12. Anonymous says:

    It is regrettable that there are not more people joining and adding their thoughts.
    Perhaps a closer investigation of various industries could provider alternative causal factors for the increase in lung cancer.
    One example might be the work force working with chromium. Although chromium III is too big to enter the nucleus of cells; chromium VI, however, is small enough to do so. The reduction of chromium VI produces a very unstable intermediate, chromium IV, which is thought to be responsible for DNA aberrations.
    Adding to this the unknown factors of biological variation we might begin to see a number of factors necessary for the manifestation of any cancer.

  13. Anonymous says:

    That was interesting. I don’t know much (yet) about chromium — but I am aware of a suggested arsenic/LC connection. And then there’s this:
    Dietary B vitamin intakes and urinary total arsenic concentration in the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study (HEALS) cohort, Bangladesh.
    Argos M, Rathouz PJ, Pierce BL, Kalra T, Parvez F, Slavkovich V, Ahmed A, Chen Y, Ahsan H.
    Department of Health Studies, The University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC2007, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
    Abstract
    PURPOSE: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the effects of dietary B vitamin intakes on creatinine-adjusted urinary total arsenic concentration among individuals participating in the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study (HEALS) cohort in Araihazar, Bangladesh. Arsenic exposure is a major public health problem in Bangladesh, where nearly 77 million people have been chronically exposed to arsenic through the consumption of naturally contaminated groundwater. Dietary factors influencing the metabolism of ingested arsenic may potentially be important modifiers of the health effects of arsenic in this population.
    METHODS: Daily average B vitamin intakes from a validated food frequency questionnaire and laboratory data on drinking water and urinary arsenic concentrations among 9,833 HEALS cohort participants were utilized. Statistical analyses were conducted using generalized estimating equations incorporating knotted spline linear regression.
    RESULTS: Increasing dietary intakes of thiamin, niacin, pantothenic acid, and pyridoxine were found to significantly increase urinary total arsenic excretion, adjusted for daily arsenic intake from drinking water and other potential confounders.
    CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that higher intakes of certain B vitamins may enhance the excretion of arsenic from the body. This study offers new insights into modifiable dietary factors that relate to arsenic excretion and thus provides potential avenues for the prevention of arsenic-related health effects.
    So perhaps smokiung (through niacin content?) serves a chelation purpose? Just a thought.
    GDF

  14. Anonymous says:

    That was interesting. I don’t know much (yet) about chromium — but I am aware of a suggested arsenic/LC connection. And then there’s this:
    Dietary B vitamin intakes and urinary total arsenic concentration in the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study (HEALS) cohort, Bangladesh.
    Argos M, Rathouz PJ, Pierce BL, Kalra T, Parvez F, Slavkovich V, Ahmed A, Chen Y, Ahsan H.
    Department of Health Studies, The University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC2007, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
    Abstract
    PURPOSE: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the effects of dietary B vitamin intakes on creatinine-adjusted urinary total arsenic concentration among individuals participating in the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study (HEALS) cohort in Araihazar, Bangladesh. Arsenic exposure is a major public health problem in Bangladesh, where nearly 77 million people have been chronically exposed to arsenic through the consumption of naturally contaminated groundwater. Dietary factors influencing the metabolism of ingested arsenic may potentially be important modifiers of the health effects of arsenic in this population.
    METHODS: Daily average B vitamin intakes from a validated food frequency questionnaire and laboratory data on drinking water and urinary arsenic concentrations among 9,833 HEALS cohort participants were utilized. Statistical analyses were conducted using generalized estimating equations incorporating knotted spline linear regression.
    RESULTS: Increasing dietary intakes of thiamin, niacin, pantothenic acid, and pyridoxine were found to significantly increase urinary total arsenic excretion, adjusted for daily arsenic intake from drinking water and other potential confounders.
    CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that higher intakes of certain B vitamins may enhance the excretion of arsenic from the body. This study offers new insights into modifiable dietary factors that relate to arsenic excretion and thus provides potential avenues for the prevention of arsenic-related health effects.
    So perhaps smokiung (through niacin content?) serves a chelation purpose? Just a thought.
    GDF

  15. Anonymous says:

    That was interesting. I don’t know much (yet) about chromium — but I am aware of a suggested arsenic/LC connection. And then there’s this:
    Dietary B vitamin intakes and urinary total arsenic concentration in the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study (HEALS) cohort, Bangladesh.
    Argos M, Rathouz PJ, Pierce BL, Kalra T, Parvez F, Slavkovich V, Ahmed A, Chen Y, Ahsan H.
    Department of Health Studies, The University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC2007, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
    Abstract
    PURPOSE: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the effects of dietary B vitamin intakes on creatinine-adjusted urinary total arsenic concentration among individuals participating in the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study (HEALS) cohort in Araihazar, Bangladesh. Arsenic exposure is a major public health problem in Bangladesh, where nearly 77 million people have been chronically exposed to arsenic through the consumption of naturally contaminated groundwater. Dietary factors influencing the metabolism of ingested arsenic may potentially be important modifiers of the health effects of arsenic in this population.
    METHODS: Daily average B vitamin intakes from a validated food frequency questionnaire and laboratory data on drinking water and urinary arsenic concentrations among 9,833 HEALS cohort participants were utilized. Statistical analyses were conducted using generalized estimating equations incorporating knotted spline linear regression.
    RESULTS: Increasing dietary intakes of thiamin, niacin, pantothenic acid, and pyridoxine were found to significantly increase urinary total arsenic excretion, adjusted for daily arsenic intake from drinking water and other potential confounders.
    CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that higher intakes of certain B vitamins may enhance the excretion of arsenic from the body. This study offers new insights into modifiable dietary factors that relate to arsenic excretion and thus provides potential avenues for the prevention of arsenic-related health effects.
    So perhaps smokiung (through niacin content?) serves a chelation purpose? Just a thought.
    GDF

  16. Anonymous says:

    GDF
    “I don’t know that much about the great London smog — but I would think that it wouldn’t be a really important epidemiological factor for explaining differential LC rates unless it was affecting smokers unequally with non-smokers. That is, it wouldn’t account for different rates of LC if everyone was experiencing the same fog (although it could account for a general increase – which may be important if you don’t think there were real differences). Or are you making a case that some group of people smoked more because of this smog?
    Or is the argument simply that Doll (who was working there) had reason to point the finger elsewhere? (That is, it’s simply an argument about Doll’s motivation?) Can someone clarify this point for me?”
    If you didn’t see or smell these toxic monsters from the 60’s and before, it will be hard to explain.
    London Smog
    “From the start of the 20th century, the landscape of London was blighted by thick smog. The word ‘smog’ described the city’s characteristic blend of fog and smoke caused by industrial flues and domestic coal fires. The smog was also referred to as the capital’s ‘pea-souper’, and Charles Dickens described it as ‘London’s particular’.
    The worst affected area of London was the East End, which had the highest density of factory smokestacks and domestic chimney pots. The low-lying geography of the area encouraged the smog to settle. To a large extent, Londoners tolerated the unpleasant effects of the smog as the cost of the city’s economic growth, but conditions became intolerable in the 1950s.”
    http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/Collections/OnlineResources/X20L/Themes/1388/1111/
    People were so used to breathing this toxic brew,it was considered normal.
    The death rate was lower and more spread out, and it was only when they ran out of coffins in 1952,that people in authority began to realise that they were in the middle of a major disaster.
    The Killer Smog in Donora, 1948
    “A murderous villain terrorized the town of Donora during the last week of October 1948. The silent killer took the lives of 20 people and left thousands of others in its wake. The killer came in without warning and vanished in a puff of smoke.
    On the western bank of the Monongahela River lies the small town of Donora. In 1948, the town was home to 14,000 residents, 6,500 whom worked for the area’s two mills, the American Steel & Wire Co. and Donora Zinc Works. Unbeknownst to the majority of the residents, the factories that sustained their livelihood would also be the cause for illness in a large majority of the town’s population and even death for some.
    On October 27, 1948, thick, opaque smog began to cover the small, flat river town. “You couldn’t see your hand in front of your face,” said resident Bill Schempp in a 1998 Tribune-Review article by Lynne Glover. Schempp described the scene as something “out of this world.” He would recall to David Templeton in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that “if you chewed [the air] hard enough, you could swallow it.”
    Within 24-hours of the smog’s arrival, police began to receive an alarming number of calls about residents who were having trouble breathing. As time progressed, the calls got more serious. Soon, those with existing respiratory problems began to die and those who were not sick began to feel the effects of the unusual fog.
    “While the temperature inversion is blamed for being one cause of the Donora disaster, emissions from the city’s mills is said to be another. The exact amounts of toxins in the air during the incident are unknown. In “The Donora Fluoride Fog: A Secret History of America’s Worst Air Pollution Disaster,” Chris Bryson explains that the records containing that information are missing from the U.S.
    Public Health Service’s archives, and that U.S. Steel is blocking records similar in nature.”
    http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/DonoraSmog.html
    Rose

  17. Anonymous says:

    GDF
    “I don’t know that much about the great London smog — but I would think that it wouldn’t be a really important epidemiological factor for explaining differential LC rates unless it was affecting smokers unequally with non-smokers. That is, it wouldn’t account for different rates of LC if everyone was experiencing the same fog (although it could account for a general increase – which may be important if you don’t think there were real differences). Or are you making a case that some group of people smoked more because of this smog?
    Or is the argument simply that Doll (who was working there) had reason to point the finger elsewhere? (That is, it’s simply an argument about Doll’s motivation?) Can someone clarify this point for me?”
    If you didn’t see or smell these toxic monsters from the 60’s and before, it will be hard to explain.
    London Smog
    “From the start of the 20th century, the landscape of London was blighted by thick smog. The word ‘smog’ described the city’s characteristic blend of fog and smoke caused by industrial flues and domestic coal fires. The smog was also referred to as the capital’s ‘pea-souper’, and Charles Dickens described it as ‘London’s particular’.
    The worst affected area of London was the East End, which had the highest density of factory smokestacks and domestic chimney pots. The low-lying geography of the area encouraged the smog to settle. To a large extent, Londoners tolerated the unpleasant effects of the smog as the cost of the city’s economic growth, but conditions became intolerable in the 1950s.”
    http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/Collections/OnlineResources/X20L/Themes/1388/1111/
    People were so used to breathing this toxic brew,it was considered normal.
    The death rate was lower and more spread out, and it was only when they ran out of coffins in 1952,that people in authority began to realise that they were in the middle of a major disaster.
    The Killer Smog in Donora, 1948
    “A murderous villain terrorized the town of Donora during the last week of October 1948. The silent killer took the lives of 20 people and left thousands of others in its wake. The killer came in without warning and vanished in a puff of smoke.
    On the western bank of the Monongahela River lies the small town of Donora. In 1948, the town was home to 14,000 residents, 6,500 whom worked for the area’s two mills, the American Steel & Wire Co. and Donora Zinc Works. Unbeknownst to the majority of the residents, the factories that sustained their livelihood would also be the cause for illness in a large majority of the town’s population and even death for some.
    On October 27, 1948, thick, opaque smog began to cover the small, flat river town. “You couldn’t see your hand in front of your face,” said resident Bill Schempp in a 1998 Tribune-Review article by Lynne Glover. Schempp described the scene as something “out of this world.” He would recall to David Templeton in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that “if you chewed [the air] hard enough, you could swallow it.”
    Within 24-hours of the smog’s arrival, police began to receive an alarming number of calls about residents who were having trouble breathing. As time progressed, the calls got more serious. Soon, those with existing respiratory problems began to die and those who were not sick began to feel the effects of the unusual fog.
    “While the temperature inversion is blamed for being one cause of the Donora disaster, emissions from the city’s mills is said to be another. The exact amounts of toxins in the air during the incident are unknown. In “The Donora Fluoride Fog: A Secret History of America’s Worst Air Pollution Disaster,” Chris Bryson explains that the records containing that information are missing from the U.S.
    Public Health Service’s archives, and that U.S. Steel is blocking records similar in nature.”
    http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/DonoraSmog.html
    Rose

  18. Anonymous says:

    GDF
    “I don’t know that much about the great London smog — but I would think that it wouldn’t be a really important epidemiological factor for explaining differential LC rates unless it was affecting smokers unequally with non-smokers. That is, it wouldn’t account for different rates of LC if everyone was experiencing the same fog (although it could account for a general increase – which may be important if you don’t think there were real differences). Or are you making a case that some group of people smoked more because of this smog?
    Or is the argument simply that Doll (who was working there) had reason to point the finger elsewhere? (That is, it’s simply an argument about Doll’s motivation?) Can someone clarify this point for me?”
    If you didn’t see or smell these toxic monsters from the 60’s and before, it will be hard to explain.
    London Smog
    “From the start of the 20th century, the landscape of London was blighted by thick smog. The word ‘smog’ described the city’s characteristic blend of fog and smoke caused by industrial flues and domestic coal fires. The smog was also referred to as the capital’s ‘pea-souper’, and Charles Dickens described it as ‘London’s particular’.
    The worst affected area of London was the East End, which had the highest density of factory smokestacks and domestic chimney pots. The low-lying geography of the area encouraged the smog to settle. To a large extent, Londoners tolerated the unpleasant effects of the smog as the cost of the city’s economic growth, but conditions became intolerable in the 1950s.”
    http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/Collections/OnlineResources/X20L/Themes/1388/1111/
    People were so used to breathing this toxic brew,it was considered normal.
    The death rate was lower and more spread out, and it was only when they ran out of coffins in 1952,that people in authority began to realise that they were in the middle of a major disaster.
    The Killer Smog in Donora, 1948
    “A murderous villain terrorized the town of Donora during the last week of October 1948. The silent killer took the lives of 20 people and left thousands of others in its wake. The killer came in without warning and vanished in a puff of smoke.
    On the western bank of the Monongahela River lies the small town of Donora. In 1948, the town was home to 14,000 residents, 6,500 whom worked for the area’s two mills, the American Steel & Wire Co. and Donora Zinc Works. Unbeknownst to the majority of the residents, the factories that sustained their livelihood would also be the cause for illness in a large majority of the town’s population and even death for some.
    On October 27, 1948, thick, opaque smog began to cover the small, flat river town. “You couldn’t see your hand in front of your face,” said resident Bill Schempp in a 1998 Tribune-Review article by Lynne Glover. Schempp described the scene as something “out of this world.” He would recall to David Templeton in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that “if you chewed [the air] hard enough, you could swallow it.”
    Within 24-hours of the smog’s arrival, police began to receive an alarming number of calls about residents who were having trouble breathing. As time progressed, the calls got more serious. Soon, those with existing respiratory problems began to die and those who were not sick began to feel the effects of the unusual fog.
    “While the temperature inversion is blamed for being one cause of the Donora disaster, emissions from the city’s mills is said to be another. The exact amounts of toxins in the air during the incident are unknown. In “The Donora Fluoride Fog: A Secret History of America’s Worst Air Pollution Disaster,” Chris Bryson explains that the records containing that information are missing from the U.S.
    Public Health Service’s archives, and that U.S. Steel is blocking records similar in nature.”
    http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/DonoraSmog.html
    Rose

    • Anonymous says:

      Boston December 30th 1959
      Lung Cancer Cause
      “A man who has devoted his scientific career to a study of the causes of cancer warns that air pollution is a more important factor than cigarette smoking in the increase of lung cancer.
      He is Dr, Wilhelm C Hueper, chief of the environmental section of the National Cancer Institute at Bethesda, and he makes the significant observation that the upsurge in lung cancer first was noted between 1900 and 1920, several years before the practice of cigarette smoking was widespread.
      Boston, having one of the most serious air pollution in the entire United States, cannot fail to be impressed – and disturbed – by Dr Hueper’s findings.
      We have always suspected that there was a connection between our contaminated air and the fact that tuberculosis is more prevalent in Boston than in any comparable city, and Bethesda studies support that suspicion.
      The next session of the Legislature would do well to pass laws against the needless poisoning of the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks.
      Other places, notably Pittsburgh, have proved the wisdom of screening out the fumes and ashes which currently rain down upon Boston and other cities, damaging human respiratory systems and undoubtedly shortening thousands of lives.
      Enlightened Massachussetts ought to be able to accomplish at least as much in the public interest.”
      http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=431567CE1BD9A55DA749F6EE58FC5DD1?tid=jsv02a00
      orkshire Post-1962
      “In the great London smog of 1952, some 4,000 people, mostly elderly, died. It was said to be the worst peace-time disaster in the capital since the Great Fire of London.
      Lessons were learned but on the 10th anniversary, the smog descended on Yorkshire and it was found not too much seemed to have changed. On December 6, in certain parts of Leeds, the sulphur dioxide concentrations were higher than the lethal levels recorded in London a decade earlier.”
      “LONDON and Leeds were the areas worst hit by smog yesterday. In London last night the number of deaths neared the 70 mark and in Leeds over 50 people were in hospital “acutely ill” with respiratory illness”
      “The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research also said that the sulphur dioxide concentration was six and five times higher than normal.
      Pollution compared to that of the 1952 smog, the experts said. But without the Clean Air Act conditions would have been worse than in 1952.
      In the Kirkstall Road area of Leeds, the sulphur dioxide concentration was greater than that registered in London in 1952. At 5,185 microgrammes per cubic metre it was the highest ever registered in the city.
      The smoke content of the air has decreased since the last bad smog in 1959 said Mr RA Dalley the city’s analyst. This was due to the smoke control zone.”
      “Fog mixed with smoke, chemicals and fumes, such as the major industrial conurbations and London have suffered in the last three days, damages lung tissue, stomach lining, nasal passages.
      Children’s lungs so damaged “will never be the same again”.
      http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/250th-anniversary?ArticleID=896717
      Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air
      pollution and lung cancer
      “Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead”
      http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html
      Now with all this apalling respiratory system damage going on year after year, of which, these are only examples.
      I find it odd that they were not mentioned in studies of the time as a possible cause of lung cancer.
      If Doll could hardly find his way to work, you would think that he might have noticed.
      Rose

      • Anonymous says:

        An interesting comment on an article about Doll and conflicts of interest, might shed some light, last comment at the bottom of the page.
        “Sir Richard made important contributions to epidemiology, but he was no saint, contrary to the impression given by outraged letters to the press by his colleagues. He had a very well-developed sense of his own importance, which led him to confabulate his own narratives, perhaps unknowingly.
        In the case of his important early work on tobacco, for example, he erased reference to preceding American work and also to the origins of the research, portraying it as a open-ended study of several possible causes of lung cancer rather than as work commissioned to examine the effects of smoking.
        He was much given to telling Just-So stories about investigating the correlated growth of motor traffic and being surprised to find that smoking was the culprit, whereas the Home Office papers clearly show that smoking was the target cause from the outset.”
        “Whether or not Sir Richard’s work was affected by commissions will have to await the judgement of historians.
        However, it would be a mistake to suppose that research funded by governments or medical charities is immune from the problems afflicting commercial sponsorship.
        Whoever pays the piper will want to have some influence over the choice of tunes.
        As civil servants are apt to say, one doesn’t commission an enquiry unless one already knows the answer. Commissioned research in any field does not necessarily have to be swayed or censored by sponsors. They pick whom to fund in the knowledge of the researcher’s existing interests.
        Declaration of interest: I was acquainted with Sir Richard, having spoken at the same conferences, and also with scholars who interviewed him”
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/08/scientistsareonlyhuman
        Rose

  19. Anonymous says:

    Boston December 30th 1959
    Lung Cancer Cause
    “A man who has devoted his scientific career to a study of the causes of cancer warns that air pollution is a more important factor than cigarette smoking in the increase of lung cancer.
    He is Dr, Wilhelm C Hueper, chief of the environmental section of the National Cancer Institute at Bethesda, and he makes the significant observation that the upsurge in lung cancer first was noted between 1900 and 1920, several years before the practice of cigarette smoking was widespread.
    Boston, having one of the most serious air pollution in the entire United States, cannot fail to be impressed – and disturbed – by Dr Hueper’s findings.
    We have always suspected that there was a connection between our contaminated air and the fact that tuberculosis is more prevalent in Boston than in any comparable city, and Bethesda studies support that suspicion.
    The next session of the Legislature would do well to pass laws against the needless poisoning of the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks.
    Other places, notably Pittsburgh, have proved the wisdom of screening out the fumes and ashes which currently rain down upon Boston and other cities, damaging human respiratory systems and undoubtedly shortening thousands of lives.
    Enlightened Massachussetts ought to be able to accomplish at least as much in the public interest.”
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=431567CE1BD9A55DA749F6EE58FC5DD1?tid=jsv02a00
    orkshire Post-1962
    “In the great London smog of 1952, some 4,000 people, mostly elderly, died. It was said to be the worst peace-time disaster in the capital since the Great Fire of London.
    Lessons were learned but on the 10th anniversary, the smog descended on Yorkshire and it was found not too much seemed to have changed. On December 6, in certain parts of Leeds, the sulphur dioxide concentrations were higher than the lethal levels recorded in London a decade earlier.”
    “LONDON and Leeds were the areas worst hit by smog yesterday. In London last night the number of deaths neared the 70 mark and in Leeds over 50 people were in hospital “acutely ill” with respiratory illness”
    “The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research also said that the sulphur dioxide concentration was six and five times higher than normal.
    Pollution compared to that of the 1952 smog, the experts said. But without the Clean Air Act conditions would have been worse than in 1952.
    In the Kirkstall Road area of Leeds, the sulphur dioxide concentration was greater than that registered in London in 1952. At 5,185 microgrammes per cubic metre it was the highest ever registered in the city.
    The smoke content of the air has decreased since the last bad smog in 1959 said Mr RA Dalley the city’s analyst. This was due to the smoke control zone.”
    “Fog mixed with smoke, chemicals and fumes, such as the major industrial conurbations and London have suffered in the last three days, damages lung tissue, stomach lining, nasal passages.
    Children’s lungs so damaged “will never be the same again”.
    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/250th-anniversary?ArticleID=896717
    Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air
    pollution and lung cancer
    “Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead”
    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html
    Now with all this apalling respiratory system damage going on year after year, of which, these are only examples.
    I find it odd that they were not mentioned in studies of the time as a possible cause of lung cancer.
    If Doll could hardly find his way to work, you would think that he might have noticed.
    Rose

  20. Anonymous says:

    Boston December 30th 1959
    Lung Cancer Cause
    “A man who has devoted his scientific career to a study of the causes of cancer warns that air pollution is a more important factor than cigarette smoking in the increase of lung cancer.
    He is Dr, Wilhelm C Hueper, chief of the environmental section of the National Cancer Institute at Bethesda, and he makes the significant observation that the upsurge in lung cancer first was noted between 1900 and 1920, several years before the practice of cigarette smoking was widespread.
    Boston, having one of the most serious air pollution in the entire United States, cannot fail to be impressed – and disturbed – by Dr Hueper’s findings.
    We have always suspected that there was a connection between our contaminated air and the fact that tuberculosis is more prevalent in Boston than in any comparable city, and Bethesda studies support that suspicion.
    The next session of the Legislature would do well to pass laws against the needless poisoning of the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks.
    Other places, notably Pittsburgh, have proved the wisdom of screening out the fumes and ashes which currently rain down upon Boston and other cities, damaging human respiratory systems and undoubtedly shortening thousands of lives.
    Enlightened Massachussetts ought to be able to accomplish at least as much in the public interest.”
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=431567CE1BD9A55DA749F6EE58FC5DD1?tid=jsv02a00
    orkshire Post-1962
    “In the great London smog of 1952, some 4,000 people, mostly elderly, died. It was said to be the worst peace-time disaster in the capital since the Great Fire of London.
    Lessons were learned but on the 10th anniversary, the smog descended on Yorkshire and it was found not too much seemed to have changed. On December 6, in certain parts of Leeds, the sulphur dioxide concentrations were higher than the lethal levels recorded in London a decade earlier.”
    “LONDON and Leeds were the areas worst hit by smog yesterday. In London last night the number of deaths neared the 70 mark and in Leeds over 50 people were in hospital “acutely ill” with respiratory illness”
    “The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research also said that the sulphur dioxide concentration was six and five times higher than normal.
    Pollution compared to that of the 1952 smog, the experts said. But without the Clean Air Act conditions would have been worse than in 1952.
    In the Kirkstall Road area of Leeds, the sulphur dioxide concentration was greater than that registered in London in 1952. At 5,185 microgrammes per cubic metre it was the highest ever registered in the city.
    The smoke content of the air has decreased since the last bad smog in 1959 said Mr RA Dalley the city’s analyst. This was due to the smoke control zone.”
    “Fog mixed with smoke, chemicals and fumes, such as the major industrial conurbations and London have suffered in the last three days, damages lung tissue, stomach lining, nasal passages.
    Children’s lungs so damaged “will never be the same again”.
    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/250th-anniversary?ArticleID=896717
    Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air
    pollution and lung cancer
    “Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead”
    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html
    Now with all this apalling respiratory system damage going on year after year, of which, these are only examples.
    I find it odd that they were not mentioned in studies of the time as a possible cause of lung cancer.
    If Doll could hardly find his way to work, you would think that he might have noticed.
    Rose

  21. Anonymous says:

    An interesting comment on an article about Doll and conflicts of interest, might shed some light, last comment at the bottom of the page.
    “Sir Richard made important contributions to epidemiology, but he was no saint, contrary to the impression given by outraged letters to the press by his colleagues. He had a very well-developed sense of his own importance, which led him to confabulate his own narratives, perhaps unknowingly.
    In the case of his important early work on tobacco, for example, he erased reference to preceding American work and also to the origins of the research, portraying it as a open-ended study of several possible causes of lung cancer rather than as work commissioned to examine the effects of smoking.
    He was much given to telling Just-So stories about investigating the correlated growth of motor traffic and being surprised to find that smoking was the culprit, whereas the Home Office papers clearly show that smoking was the target cause from the outset.”
    “Whether or not Sir Richard’s work was affected by commissions will have to await the judgement of historians.
    However, it would be a mistake to suppose that research funded by governments or medical charities is immune from the problems afflicting commercial sponsorship.
    Whoever pays the piper will want to have some influence over the choice of tunes.
    As civil servants are apt to say, one doesn’t commission an enquiry unless one already knows the answer. Commissioned research in any field does not necessarily have to be swayed or censored by sponsors. They pick whom to fund in the knowledge of the researcher’s existing interests.
    Declaration of interest: I was acquainted with Sir Richard, having spoken at the same conferences, and also with scholars who interviewed him”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/08/scientistsareonlyhuman
    Rose

  22. Anonymous says:

    An interesting comment on an article about Doll and conflicts of interest, might shed some light, last comment at the bottom of the page.
    “Sir Richard made important contributions to epidemiology, but he was no saint, contrary to the impression given by outraged letters to the press by his colleagues. He had a very well-developed sense of his own importance, which led him to confabulate his own narratives, perhaps unknowingly.
    In the case of his important early work on tobacco, for example, he erased reference to preceding American work and also to the origins of the research, portraying it as a open-ended study of several possible causes of lung cancer rather than as work commissioned to examine the effects of smoking.
    He was much given to telling Just-So stories about investigating the correlated growth of motor traffic and being surprised to find that smoking was the culprit, whereas the Home Office papers clearly show that smoking was the target cause from the outset.”
    “Whether or not Sir Richard’s work was affected by commissions will have to await the judgement of historians.
    However, it would be a mistake to suppose that research funded by governments or medical charities is immune from the problems afflicting commercial sponsorship.
    Whoever pays the piper will want to have some influence over the choice of tunes.
    As civil servants are apt to say, one doesn’t commission an enquiry unless one already knows the answer. Commissioned research in any field does not necessarily have to be swayed or censored by sponsors. They pick whom to fund in the knowledge of the researcher’s existing interests.
    Declaration of interest: I was acquainted with Sir Richard, having spoken at the same conferences, and also with scholars who interviewed him”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/08/scientistsareonlyhuman
    Rose

  23. junican says:

    Catch 17
    I am currently reading through the US Surgeon General’s report 2010. Early on in the report, it says (I think!) that it is not concerned with whether or not smoking ’causes’ cancer, since that effect was ‘proved’ in the 2004 report. It goes on to say that purpose of the 2010 report is to provide more information of ‘biological cause and effect’, or words to that effect. It is extremely messy and boring (quoting lots of studies describing how enzyme this affects enzyme that), but one of the first things that I noticed was this:
    “”This report of the Surgeon General was prepared by
    the Office on Smoking and Health””
    And so we can reasonably assume that the SG had nothing much to do with it – it was all constructed by the US equivalent of ASH, except that the US equivalent of ASH is even more embedded in the US Health Dept than ours is.
    Also, despite the SG’s assertion that one whiff of tobacco smoke can cause a heart attack, one observes that the text of the report is full of words such as ‘maybe’, and ‘possibly’ and ‘suggest that’.
    I also notice that there are hundreds of studies quoted. I wonder who paid for these studies, and, obviously, to what extent ‘the piper calls the tune’.
    But I am only half way through, and I am not sure because of the complexity and foreign language (by which I mean, mumbo jumbo).
    If people here do read it, do so carefully. One of the things that I noticed is that a lot of time and words seem to be spent upon describing the ‘pathways’ etc which enable tobacco ‘addiction’. But it seems to me that, in effect, much of this ‘evidence’ applies equally to chocolate ‘addiction’. IE, in an evolutionary sense, the human body can persuade the human mind to desperately need, say, food and water. By association, the report suggests that tobacco craving is the same sort of thing. That may well be true, but is it the same sort of addiction as, say, heroin or cocaine? I would say not, if only because I have never heard of anyone at all ever, killing, robbing, mugging, etc, to get the money to buy tobacco. also, I have noticed that the report often says that non-smokers excrete via urine the same substances that smokers excrete, but smokers excrete more. Think about whether or not non-smokers should be excreting these substances at all if they do not smoke (nb. possible to blame passive smoking or food!).
    So, as you read it, look for missing data rather than what is included.
    Maybe we all ought to read this report in order to see the truth.

  24. junican says:

    Catch 17
    I am currently reading through the US Surgeon General’s report 2010. Early on in the report, it says (I think!) that it is not concerned with whether or not smoking ’causes’ cancer, since that effect was ‘proved’ in the 2004 report. It goes on to say that purpose of the 2010 report is to provide more information of ‘biological cause and effect’, or words to that effect. It is extremely messy and boring (quoting lots of studies describing how enzyme this affects enzyme that), but one of the first things that I noticed was this:
    “”This report of the Surgeon General was prepared by
    the Office on Smoking and Health””
    And so we can reasonably assume that the SG had nothing much to do with it – it was all constructed by the US equivalent of ASH, except that the US equivalent of ASH is even more embedded in the US Health Dept than ours is.
    Also, despite the SG’s assertion that one whiff of tobacco smoke can cause a heart attack, one observes that the text of the report is full of words such as ‘maybe’, and ‘possibly’ and ‘suggest that’.
    I also notice that there are hundreds of studies quoted. I wonder who paid for these studies, and, obviously, to what extent ‘the piper calls the tune’.
    But I am only half way through, and I am not sure because of the complexity and foreign language (by which I mean, mumbo jumbo).
    If people here do read it, do so carefully. One of the things that I noticed is that a lot of time and words seem to be spent upon describing the ‘pathways’ etc which enable tobacco ‘addiction’. But it seems to me that, in effect, much of this ‘evidence’ applies equally to chocolate ‘addiction’. IE, in an evolutionary sense, the human body can persuade the human mind to desperately need, say, food and water. By association, the report suggests that tobacco craving is the same sort of thing. That may well be true, but is it the same sort of addiction as, say, heroin or cocaine? I would say not, if only because I have never heard of anyone at all ever, killing, robbing, mugging, etc, to get the money to buy tobacco. also, I have noticed that the report often says that non-smokers excrete via urine the same substances that smokers excrete, but smokers excrete more. Think about whether or not non-smokers should be excreting these substances at all if they do not smoke (nb. possible to blame passive smoking or food!).
    So, as you read it, look for missing data rather than what is included.
    Maybe we all ought to read this report in order to see the truth.

  25. junican says:

    Catch 17
    I am currently reading through the US Surgeon General’s report 2010. Early on in the report, it says (I think!) that it is not concerned with whether or not smoking ’causes’ cancer, since that effect was ‘proved’ in the 2004 report. It goes on to say that purpose of the 2010 report is to provide more information of ‘biological cause and effect’, or words to that effect. It is extremely messy and boring (quoting lots of studies describing how enzyme this affects enzyme that), but one of the first things that I noticed was this:
    “”This report of the Surgeon General was prepared by
    the Office on Smoking and Health””
    And so we can reasonably assume that the SG had nothing much to do with it – it was all constructed by the US equivalent of ASH, except that the US equivalent of ASH is even more embedded in the US Health Dept than ours is.
    Also, despite the SG’s assertion that one whiff of tobacco smoke can cause a heart attack, one observes that the text of the report is full of words such as ‘maybe’, and ‘possibly’ and ‘suggest that’.
    I also notice that there are hundreds of studies quoted. I wonder who paid for these studies, and, obviously, to what extent ‘the piper calls the tune’.
    But I am only half way through, and I am not sure because of the complexity and foreign language (by which I mean, mumbo jumbo).
    If people here do read it, do so carefully. One of the things that I noticed is that a lot of time and words seem to be spent upon describing the ‘pathways’ etc which enable tobacco ‘addiction’. But it seems to me that, in effect, much of this ‘evidence’ applies equally to chocolate ‘addiction’. IE, in an evolutionary sense, the human body can persuade the human mind to desperately need, say, food and water. By association, the report suggests that tobacco craving is the same sort of thing. That may well be true, but is it the same sort of addiction as, say, heroin or cocaine? I would say not, if only because I have never heard of anyone at all ever, killing, robbing, mugging, etc, to get the money to buy tobacco. also, I have noticed that the report often says that non-smokers excrete via urine the same substances that smokers excrete, but smokers excrete more. Think about whether or not non-smokers should be excreting these substances at all if they do not smoke (nb. possible to blame passive smoking or food!).
    So, as you read it, look for missing data rather than what is included.
    Maybe we all ought to read this report in order to see the truth.

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: Catch 17
      Junican your gonna find that the 2006 report was also written by anti-tobacco in america.Stanton glantz provided the heart attack and cardiovascular parts of it.He even takes great pleasure that he added his 2 cents of propaganda to it!

  26. Anonymous says:

    On the subject of conflict of interest… There is this myth of the disinterested scientist. A myth that really should die. Your average researcher isn’t independently wealthy. S/he is usually being paid by someone (in money or career advancement) — to promote something. With the possible exception of James Lovelock – who, IIRC made a point to work independently (self-funded by his work as an inventor) — I know of no researcher who is truly independent. It’s silly to think otherwise. Who is there to fund this “independent research”? (Please don’t say “gov’t” — because even gov’t has a point of view). All we can hope is that the truth comes out eventually. In hard sciences – replication serves this purpose. But when did you last here of an epidemiological study being replicated?
    In epidemiology, finding what you want to find is as easy as choosing the right question, choosing the right population, and/or choosing the right analytical method (including choosing (or ignoring) the right co-variants). It’s not that hard to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. And when you have a process that’s easy to nudge in the desired direction, and motivation to do so… well.. you have a problem.
    I guess I’m saying that none of this surprises me about Doll, Because I wouldn’t really have thought otherwise.
    Anyway, so it seems what you are saying is that you believe that Richard Doll had a lot of motivation to find what he claimed to have found.
    Rose — (or anyone else) WRT to the smog (which sounds awful!) — do you think it created an actual association that Doll was measuring (people more affected by the smog smoked more (perhaps as detox)?). Or do you think it simply increased the rate of LC and made finding an alternate culprit more important (and that the smoking/LC association didn’t really exist)?
    GDF

  27. Anonymous says:

    On the subject of conflict of interest… There is this myth of the disinterested scientist. A myth that really should die. Your average researcher isn’t independently wealthy. S/he is usually being paid by someone (in money or career advancement) — to promote something. With the possible exception of James Lovelock – who, IIRC made a point to work independently (self-funded by his work as an inventor) — I know of no researcher who is truly independent. It’s silly to think otherwise. Who is there to fund this “independent research”? (Please don’t say “gov’t” — because even gov’t has a point of view). All we can hope is that the truth comes out eventually. In hard sciences – replication serves this purpose. But when did you last here of an epidemiological study being replicated?
    In epidemiology, finding what you want to find is as easy as choosing the right question, choosing the right population, and/or choosing the right analytical method (including choosing (or ignoring) the right co-variants). It’s not that hard to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. And when you have a process that’s easy to nudge in the desired direction, and motivation to do so… well.. you have a problem.
    I guess I’m saying that none of this surprises me about Doll, Because I wouldn’t really have thought otherwise.
    Anyway, so it seems what you are saying is that you believe that Richard Doll had a lot of motivation to find what he claimed to have found.
    Rose — (or anyone else) WRT to the smog (which sounds awful!) — do you think it created an actual association that Doll was measuring (people more affected by the smog smoked more (perhaps as detox)?). Or do you think it simply increased the rate of LC and made finding an alternate culprit more important (and that the smoking/LC association didn’t really exist)?
    GDF

  28. Anonymous says:

    On the subject of conflict of interest… There is this myth of the disinterested scientist. A myth that really should die. Your average researcher isn’t independently wealthy. S/he is usually being paid by someone (in money or career advancement) — to promote something. With the possible exception of James Lovelock – who, IIRC made a point to work independently (self-funded by his work as an inventor) — I know of no researcher who is truly independent. It’s silly to think otherwise. Who is there to fund this “independent research”? (Please don’t say “gov’t” — because even gov’t has a point of view). All we can hope is that the truth comes out eventually. In hard sciences – replication serves this purpose. But when did you last here of an epidemiological study being replicated?
    In epidemiology, finding what you want to find is as easy as choosing the right question, choosing the right population, and/or choosing the right analytical method (including choosing (or ignoring) the right co-variants). It’s not that hard to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. And when you have a process that’s easy to nudge in the desired direction, and motivation to do so… well.. you have a problem.
    I guess I’m saying that none of this surprises me about Doll, Because I wouldn’t really have thought otherwise.
    Anyway, so it seems what you are saying is that you believe that Richard Doll had a lot of motivation to find what he claimed to have found.
    Rose — (or anyone else) WRT to the smog (which sounds awful!) — do you think it created an actual association that Doll was measuring (people more affected by the smog smoked more (perhaps as detox)?). Or do you think it simply increased the rate of LC and made finding an alternate culprit more important (and that the smoking/LC association didn’t really exist)?
    GDF

  29. Anonymous says:

    Junican — that was kind of my point. The SG has a job to do (and collects a paycheck for doing something). All the people employed by the Office on Smoking and Health – want to get paid and (like any government agancy) they are motivated to exaggerate the magnitude of the problem they are charged with, in order to increase funding. But my point is, that none of this can possibly be “disinterested”. As individuals, most likely, none of these people are “evil” — they’re like everyone else. Day to day, they just want to keep their jobs and feed their kids.
    But to accept any of it at face value (as most people will, of course) is, (IMO) foolish.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Junican — that was kind of my point. The SG has a job to do (and collects a paycheck for doing something). All the people employed by the Office on Smoking and Health – want to get paid and (like any government agancy) they are motivated to exaggerate the magnitude of the problem they are charged with, in order to increase funding. But my point is, that none of this can possibly be “disinterested”. As individuals, most likely, none of these people are “evil” — they’re like everyone else. Day to day, they just want to keep their jobs and feed their kids.
    But to accept any of it at face value (as most people will, of course) is, (IMO) foolish.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Junican — that was kind of my point. The SG has a job to do (and collects a paycheck for doing something). All the people employed by the Office on Smoking and Health – want to get paid and (like any government agancy) they are motivated to exaggerate the magnitude of the problem they are charged with, in order to increase funding. But my point is, that none of this can possibly be “disinterested”. As individuals, most likely, none of these people are “evil” — they’re like everyone else. Day to day, they just want to keep their jobs and feed their kids.
    But to accept any of it at face value (as most people will, of course) is, (IMO) foolish.

  32. Anonymous says:

    That was me, of course. Forgot to sign again
    GDF

  33. Anonymous says:

    That was me, of course. Forgot to sign again
    GDF

  34. Anonymous says:

    That was me, of course. Forgot to sign again
    GDF

  35. junican says:

    Yes, GDF. The researchers are not dishonest – it is rather that they are looking for what they want to find, or what they have been told to look for!
    But I need to read this SG report all the way through and then again. But there is so much chemistry that it is very hard. You are probably aware of electricity and magnetism studies and how enormously complex just electric currents, electric fields and magnetic fields are. Well, in this study, there are not just three multivariables, there are hundreds if not thousands! In the end, the writers simply have to fall back on the old epidemiological ‘certainties’ – more smokers get whatever disease than non-smokers – QED. Which will not do.

  36. junican says:

    Yes, GDF. The researchers are not dishonest – it is rather that they are looking for what they want to find, or what they have been told to look for!
    But I need to read this SG report all the way through and then again. But there is so much chemistry that it is very hard. You are probably aware of electricity and magnetism studies and how enormously complex just electric currents, electric fields and magnetic fields are. Well, in this study, there are not just three multivariables, there are hundreds if not thousands! In the end, the writers simply have to fall back on the old epidemiological ‘certainties’ – more smokers get whatever disease than non-smokers – QED. Which will not do.

  37. junican says:

    Yes, GDF. The researchers are not dishonest – it is rather that they are looking for what they want to find, or what they have been told to look for!
    But I need to read this SG report all the way through and then again. But there is so much chemistry that it is very hard. You are probably aware of electricity and magnetism studies and how enormously complex just electric currents, electric fields and magnetic fields are. Well, in this study, there are not just three multivariables, there are hundreds if not thousands! In the end, the writers simply have to fall back on the old epidemiological ‘certainties’ – more smokers get whatever disease than non-smokers – QED. Which will not do.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Wow! This looks like an interesting article. Don’t have full access though.
    “The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts are losing their truth. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. When Jonathan Schooler was a graduate student at the University of Washington, he discovered a surprising phenomenon having to do with language and memory that he called verbal overshadowing. While Schooler was publishing his results in journals, he noticed that it was proving difficult to replicate his earlier findings… ”
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz18coh5Cw2
    GDF

  39. Anonymous says:

    Wow! This looks like an interesting article. Don’t have full access though.
    “The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts are losing their truth. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. When Jonathan Schooler was a graduate student at the University of Washington, he discovered a surprising phenomenon having to do with language and memory that he called verbal overshadowing. While Schooler was publishing his results in journals, he noticed that it was proving difficult to replicate his earlier findings… ”
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz18coh5Cw2
    GDF

  40. Anonymous says:

    Wow! This looks like an interesting article. Don’t have full access though.
    “The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts are losing their truth. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. When Jonathan Schooler was a graduate student at the University of Washington, he discovered a surprising phenomenon having to do with language and memory that he called verbal overshadowing. While Schooler was publishing his results in journals, he noticed that it was proving difficult to replicate his earlier findings… ”
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz18coh5Cw2
    GDF

    • Anonymous says:

      http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
      Access seems full & free here:-
      Are you running some script-blocking extensions &or etc.?
      Article’s interesting;- thanks for the tip!
      “The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.”
      Ross

  41. Anonymous says:

    Re: Catch 17
    Junican your gonna find that the 2006 report was also written by anti-tobacco in america.Stanton glantz provided the heart attack and cardiovascular parts of it.He even takes great pleasure that he added his 2 cents of propaganda to it!

  42. Anonymous says:

    Re: Catch 17
    Junican your gonna find that the 2006 report was also written by anti-tobacco in america.Stanton glantz provided the heart attack and cardiovascular parts of it.He even takes great pleasure that he added his 2 cents of propaganda to it!

  43. Anonymous says:

    GDF
    “Rose — (or anyone else) WRT to the smog (which sounds awful!) — do you think it created an actual association that Doll was measuring (people more affected by the smog smoked more (perhaps as detox)?). – Yes
    Or do you think it simply increased the rate of LC and made finding an alternate culprit more important (and that the smoking/LC association didn’t really exist)? – Yes and yes, for the reason above.
    Like cough medicine is strongly associated with bad coughs
    Here’s why.
    “At the Smithfield Show at Earls Court, where the fog had seeped into the prize cattle’s quarters, many animals were taken sick, just as they had in the great fog of 1873.
    Thirteen had to be destroyed, and autopsies later showed that the animals had suffered from severe inflammation of the airways in their lungs.”
    http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/environment/GreatFog/fog6.html
    “Cattle in the city’s Smithfield market were killed and thrown away before they could be slaughtered and sold — their lungs were black.”
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954
    Short term relief
    Harvard and U. Pittsburgh researchers explain carbon monoxide’s anti-inflammatory effects
    In a study appearing in the April 2007 issue of The FASEB Journal, scientists from Harvard University and the University of Pittsburgh have shown for the first time that the anti-inflammatory effects of carbon monoxide originate within cells’ own molecular engines, mitochondria. Specifically, mitochondria react to low levels of carbon monoxide by releasing chemical signals that reduce or shut down the body’s inflammatory response, raising the possibility for the development of new anti-inflammatory therapies, one of which may be low levels of inhaled carbon monoxide.
    According to the study’s first author, Brian S. Zuckerbraun, M.D. of the University of Pittsburgh, “this study may contribute to our understanding and development of controlled carbon monoxide as a therapeutic agent.”
    http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0703/92.htm
    ‘Surprise benefit from carbon monoxide’
    “Researchers at the University Medical Centre in Groningen, the Netherlands, found that the gas appeared to ease the inflammation of lung tissues when given in low doses over a four-day period.”
    http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=13267
    “The industrial revolution brought factory chimneys that belched gases and huge numbers of particles into the atmosphere.
    Some of these particles caused lung and eye irritations. Others were poisonous. All were potentially condensation nuclei, the tiny hygroscopic particles on which condensation forms.
    From the gases, corrosive acids were formed, notably sulphuric acid, which is produced when sulphur dioxide combines with oxygen and water.
    As if it were not enough that they brought on agues, rheumatism and fevers and carried particles of soot from coal fires, the fogs of the British Isles now became even more unpleasant, for the noxious emissions from factory chimneys gave them an acrid taste, an unpleasant odour and a dirty yellow or brown colour.
    These fogs, so different from the clean white fogs of country areas, came to be known as ‘pea soupers’, not only in London but also in other industrial areas of the British Isles. The particles in the atmosphere made buildings dirty and the acids attacked ironwork, stonework and fabrics.”
    http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/great_smog.html
    You just don’t recover from that easily, its a major injury to the lungs, especially when it is repeated.
    Cancer of the Lung – England 1921-30
    Males age 25 and over
    Page5
    Respiratory Cancer, White males, United States – 1950
    Page 6

    Click to access 141.full.pdf


    Just look at the London area.
    If the public had been able to see those charts of deaths from industrial exposure, they would have fled the cities very quickly.
    But you need workers to keep the wheels of industry turning.
    By telling them the deaths were their own fault for smoking, they would stop thinking for themselves and stay put.
    Used in Germany, America and England,who were all knitted together by a web of company shareholding and “philanthropy”.
    Rose

  44. Anonymous says:

    GDF
    “Rose — (or anyone else) WRT to the smog (which sounds awful!) — do you think it created an actual association that Doll was measuring (people more affected by the smog smoked more (perhaps as detox)?). – Yes
    Or do you think it simply increased the rate of LC and made finding an alternate culprit more important (and that the smoking/LC association didn’t really exist)? – Yes and yes, for the reason above.
    Like cough medicine is strongly associated with bad coughs
    Here’s why.
    “At the Smithfield Show at Earls Court, where the fog had seeped into the prize cattle’s quarters, many animals were taken sick, just as they had in the great fog of 1873.
    Thirteen had to be destroyed, and autopsies later showed that the animals had suffered from severe inflammation of the airways in their lungs.”
    http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/environment/GreatFog/fog6.html
    “Cattle in the city’s Smithfield market were killed and thrown away before they could be slaughtered and sold — their lungs were black.”
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954
    Short term relief
    Harvard and U. Pittsburgh researchers explain carbon monoxide’s anti-inflammatory effects
    In a study appearing in the April 2007 issue of The FASEB Journal, scientists from Harvard University and the University of Pittsburgh have shown for the first time that the anti-inflammatory effects of carbon monoxide originate within cells’ own molecular engines, mitochondria. Specifically, mitochondria react to low levels of carbon monoxide by releasing chemical signals that reduce or shut down the body’s inflammatory response, raising the possibility for the development of new anti-inflammatory therapies, one of which may be low levels of inhaled carbon monoxide.
    According to the study’s first author, Brian S. Zuckerbraun, M.D. of the University of Pittsburgh, “this study may contribute to our understanding and development of controlled carbon monoxide as a therapeutic agent.”
    http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0703/92.htm
    ‘Surprise benefit from carbon monoxide’
    “Researchers at the University Medical Centre in Groningen, the Netherlands, found that the gas appeared to ease the inflammation of lung tissues when given in low doses over a four-day period.”
    http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=13267
    “The industrial revolution brought factory chimneys that belched gases and huge numbers of particles into the atmosphere.
    Some of these particles caused lung and eye irritations. Others were poisonous. All were potentially condensation nuclei, the tiny hygroscopic particles on which condensation forms.
    From the gases, corrosive acids were formed, notably sulphuric acid, which is produced when sulphur dioxide combines with oxygen and water.
    As if it were not enough that they brought on agues, rheumatism and fevers and carried particles of soot from coal fires, the fogs of the British Isles now became even more unpleasant, for the noxious emissions from factory chimneys gave them an acrid taste, an unpleasant odour and a dirty yellow or brown colour.
    These fogs, so different from the clean white fogs of country areas, came to be known as ‘pea soupers’, not only in London but also in other industrial areas of the British Isles. The particles in the atmosphere made buildings dirty and the acids attacked ironwork, stonework and fabrics.”
    http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/great_smog.html
    You just don’t recover from that easily, its a major injury to the lungs, especially when it is repeated.
    Cancer of the Lung – England 1921-30
    Males age 25 and over
    Page5
    Respiratory Cancer, White males, United States – 1950
    Page 6

    Click to access 141.full.pdf


    Just look at the London area.
    If the public had been able to see those charts of deaths from industrial exposure, they would have fled the cities very quickly.
    But you need workers to keep the wheels of industry turning.
    By telling them the deaths were their own fault for smoking, they would stop thinking for themselves and stay put.
    Used in Germany, America and England,who were all knitted together by a web of company shareholding and “philanthropy”.
    Rose

  45. Anonymous says:

    GDF
    “Rose — (or anyone else) WRT to the smog (which sounds awful!) — do you think it created an actual association that Doll was measuring (people more affected by the smog smoked more (perhaps as detox)?). – Yes
    Or do you think it simply increased the rate of LC and made finding an alternate culprit more important (and that the smoking/LC association didn’t really exist)? – Yes and yes, for the reason above.
    Like cough medicine is strongly associated with bad coughs
    Here’s why.
    “At the Smithfield Show at Earls Court, where the fog had seeped into the prize cattle’s quarters, many animals were taken sick, just as they had in the great fog of 1873.
    Thirteen had to be destroyed, and autopsies later showed that the animals had suffered from severe inflammation of the airways in their lungs.”
    http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/environment/GreatFog/fog6.html
    “Cattle in the city’s Smithfield market were killed and thrown away before they could be slaughtered and sold — their lungs were black.”
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954
    Short term relief
    Harvard and U. Pittsburgh researchers explain carbon monoxide’s anti-inflammatory effects
    In a study appearing in the April 2007 issue of The FASEB Journal, scientists from Harvard University and the University of Pittsburgh have shown for the first time that the anti-inflammatory effects of carbon monoxide originate within cells’ own molecular engines, mitochondria. Specifically, mitochondria react to low levels of carbon monoxide by releasing chemical signals that reduce or shut down the body’s inflammatory response, raising the possibility for the development of new anti-inflammatory therapies, one of which may be low levels of inhaled carbon monoxide.
    According to the study’s first author, Brian S. Zuckerbraun, M.D. of the University of Pittsburgh, “this study may contribute to our understanding and development of controlled carbon monoxide as a therapeutic agent.”
    http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0703/92.htm
    ‘Surprise benefit from carbon monoxide’
    “Researchers at the University Medical Centre in Groningen, the Netherlands, found that the gas appeared to ease the inflammation of lung tissues when given in low doses over a four-day period.”
    http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=13267
    “The industrial revolution brought factory chimneys that belched gases and huge numbers of particles into the atmosphere.
    Some of these particles caused lung and eye irritations. Others were poisonous. All were potentially condensation nuclei, the tiny hygroscopic particles on which condensation forms.
    From the gases, corrosive acids were formed, notably sulphuric acid, which is produced when sulphur dioxide combines with oxygen and water.
    As if it were not enough that they brought on agues, rheumatism and fevers and carried particles of soot from coal fires, the fogs of the British Isles now became even more unpleasant, for the noxious emissions from factory chimneys gave them an acrid taste, an unpleasant odour and a dirty yellow or brown colour.
    These fogs, so different from the clean white fogs of country areas, came to be known as ‘pea soupers’, not only in London but also in other industrial areas of the British Isles. The particles in the atmosphere made buildings dirty and the acids attacked ironwork, stonework and fabrics.”
    http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/great_smog.html
    You just don’t recover from that easily, its a major injury to the lungs, especially when it is repeated.
    Cancer of the Lung – England 1921-30
    Males age 25 and over
    Page5
    Respiratory Cancer, White males, United States – 1950
    Page 6

    Click to access 141.full.pdf


    Just look at the London area.
    If the public had been able to see those charts of deaths from industrial exposure, they would have fled the cities very quickly.
    But you need workers to keep the wheels of industry turning.
    By telling them the deaths were their own fault for smoking, they would stop thinking for themselves and stay put.
    Used in Germany, America and England,who were all knitted together by a web of company shareholding and “philanthropy”.
    Rose

    • Anonymous says:

      Medicine: Death in the Smoke
      Monday, May. 11, 1959
      “It does not take “a London particular” to send cough-racked Britons to their beds —or their graves. The tight little island’s air is tightly packed with pollutant particles, boosting the bronchitis and chest-disease rate to the world’s highest. Last week Dr. Horace Joules (rhymes with rules), of London’s Central Middlesex Hospital, painted a Dickensian picture of what a medical nightmare the past winter had been in the city which some Englishmen still call “the Smoke.”
      “We are a great community hospital of 800 beds,” said Dr. Joules, “but during February and March we ceased to be a general hospital.
      We had to suspend all admissions except emergency cases of chest and heart disease.* In those two months we admitted 616 such cases, and 196 died.
      The hospital really was an annex of the mortuary. If there had been a few days of smog, there would have been a holocaust in London.”
      Echoed Edgware General Hospital’s Dr. Hugh J. Trenchard: “It is time to panic.”
      *The two are closely related because failing hearts may be fatally threatened by breathing difficulties.”
      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,865848,00.html
      “It was a murder mystery playing out in major cities across the country and perplexing scientists.
      Thousands of people were dying from strokes and heart attacks within 24 hours of a spike in microscopic pollution — tiny particles that spew from the exhaust of diesel trucks, buses and coal-burning factories.”
      “The study identifies how these tiny pieces of soot — called particulate matter air pollution — kill people at risk and tells how they can protect themselves from these pollution-related strokes and heart attacks”
      “The study found that lungs inflamed by the pollution secrete a substance, interleukin-6, which causes an increased tendency for blood to coagulate or clot.
      This raises the risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke in people with cardiovascular disease such as coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure or a history of stroke.”
      “This is a critical missing piece of the puzzle that has eluded scientists for decades,”
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070921130738.htm
      Second World Conference on Smoking and Health – London 1971
      “But psychologist Daniel Horn, of the U.S. Public Health Service’s National Clearinghouse on Smoking and Health, observed that “under certain conditions” an increase in carbon monoxide from others’ cigarettes might be harmful to someone with a heart condiition.”
      http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/03659161.html
      Perfectly logical with the science of the day,but wrong.
      The anti-inflammatory nature of carbon monoxide has only been discovered in the last few years.
      “Carbon monoxide is an anti-inflammatory, and they want to explore its potential in treating high blood pressure, heart disease and possibly cancer”
      “Carbon monoxide causes vasorelaxation and is produced naturally as a result of the breakdown of haemoglobin. This can be seen in the healing process of a bruise, where various colour changes indicate the degradation of haemoglobin and release of carbon monoxide. The slow release of carbon monoxide reduces blood pressure for someone who has angina, for instance”
      http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2007/carbonmonoxide/
      “In fact CO is produced as a normal part of a reaction that generates antioxidants in the blood when tissues are inflamed. It was once dismissed as a worthless by-product of this reaction, but now it seems that the gas itself has the ability to calm inflammation in humans too.
      “Your body is already loaded with carbon monoxide,” says Huib Kerstjens, …”
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726484.100-carbon-monoxide-could-fight-disease.html?feedId=health_rss20
      Of course smoking humans are unlikely to know any of this, they just know it makes them feel better.
      Rose

      • Anonymous says:

        How it works, if you can’t get away with it completely –
        Miners win historic compensation claim 1998
        “Six miners who suffered chronic ill health from inhaling coal dust during their work have won compensation claims against the UK Government.
        The High Court ruling opens the floodgate for tens of thousands of similar actions from miners who worked in the pits decades ago.
        It could lead to the highest ever damages bill against a single British employer – the cost to the taxpayer could reach £1bn.
        Mr Justice Turner awarded the six test case miners up to £10,000 each for pain, suffering and disability from emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
        All but one of the claims were reduced because smoking contributed to the diseases.”
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/49973.stm
        Rose

        • Anonymous says:

          How odd when smoking hasnt been proven to cause disease to start with! But coal miners black lung has…………

  46. Anonymous says:

    Medicine: Death in the Smoke
    Monday, May. 11, 1959
    “It does not take “a London particular” to send cough-racked Britons to their beds —or their graves. The tight little island’s air is tightly packed with pollutant particles, boosting the bronchitis and chest-disease rate to the world’s highest. Last week Dr. Horace Joules (rhymes with rules), of London’s Central Middlesex Hospital, painted a Dickensian picture of what a medical nightmare the past winter had been in the city which some Englishmen still call “the Smoke.”
    “We are a great community hospital of 800 beds,” said Dr. Joules, “but during February and March we ceased to be a general hospital.
    We had to suspend all admissions except emergency cases of chest and heart disease.* In those two months we admitted 616 such cases, and 196 died.
    The hospital really was an annex of the mortuary. If there had been a few days of smog, there would have been a holocaust in London.”
    Echoed Edgware General Hospital’s Dr. Hugh J. Trenchard: “It is time to panic.”
    *The two are closely related because failing hearts may be fatally threatened by breathing difficulties.”
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,865848,00.html
    “It was a murder mystery playing out in major cities across the country and perplexing scientists.
    Thousands of people were dying from strokes and heart attacks within 24 hours of a spike in microscopic pollution — tiny particles that spew from the exhaust of diesel trucks, buses and coal-burning factories.”
    “The study identifies how these tiny pieces of soot — called particulate matter air pollution — kill people at risk and tells how they can protect themselves from these pollution-related strokes and heart attacks”
    “The study found that lungs inflamed by the pollution secrete a substance, interleukin-6, which causes an increased tendency for blood to coagulate or clot.
    This raises the risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke in people with cardiovascular disease such as coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure or a history of stroke.”
    “This is a critical missing piece of the puzzle that has eluded scientists for decades,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070921130738.htm
    Second World Conference on Smoking and Health – London 1971
    “But psychologist Daniel Horn, of the U.S. Public Health Service’s National Clearinghouse on Smoking and Health, observed that “under certain conditions” an increase in carbon monoxide from others’ cigarettes might be harmful to someone with a heart condiition.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/03659161.html
    Perfectly logical with the science of the day,but wrong.
    The anti-inflammatory nature of carbon monoxide has only been discovered in the last few years.
    “Carbon monoxide is an anti-inflammatory, and they want to explore its potential in treating high blood pressure, heart disease and possibly cancer”
    “Carbon monoxide causes vasorelaxation and is produced naturally as a result of the breakdown of haemoglobin. This can be seen in the healing process of a bruise, where various colour changes indicate the degradation of haemoglobin and release of carbon monoxide. The slow release of carbon monoxide reduces blood pressure for someone who has angina, for instance”
    http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2007/carbonmonoxide/
    “In fact CO is produced as a normal part of a reaction that generates antioxidants in the blood when tissues are inflamed. It was once dismissed as a worthless by-product of this reaction, but now it seems that the gas itself has the ability to calm inflammation in humans too.
    “Your body is already loaded with carbon monoxide,” says Huib Kerstjens, …”
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726484.100-carbon-monoxide-could-fight-disease.html?feedId=health_rss20
    Of course smoking humans are unlikely to know any of this, they just know it makes them feel better.
    Rose

  47. Anonymous says:

    Medicine: Death in the Smoke
    Monday, May. 11, 1959
    “It does not take “a London particular” to send cough-racked Britons to their beds —or their graves. The tight little island’s air is tightly packed with pollutant particles, boosting the bronchitis and chest-disease rate to the world’s highest. Last week Dr. Horace Joules (rhymes with rules), of London’s Central Middlesex Hospital, painted a Dickensian picture of what a medical nightmare the past winter had been in the city which some Englishmen still call “the Smoke.”
    “We are a great community hospital of 800 beds,” said Dr. Joules, “but during February and March we ceased to be a general hospital.
    We had to suspend all admissions except emergency cases of chest and heart disease.* In those two months we admitted 616 such cases, and 196 died.
    The hospital really was an annex of the mortuary. If there had been a few days of smog, there would have been a holocaust in London.”
    Echoed Edgware General Hospital’s Dr. Hugh J. Trenchard: “It is time to panic.”
    *The two are closely related because failing hearts may be fatally threatened by breathing difficulties.”
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,865848,00.html
    “It was a murder mystery playing out in major cities across the country and perplexing scientists.
    Thousands of people were dying from strokes and heart attacks within 24 hours of a spike in microscopic pollution — tiny particles that spew from the exhaust of diesel trucks, buses and coal-burning factories.”
    “The study identifies how these tiny pieces of soot — called particulate matter air pollution — kill people at risk and tells how they can protect themselves from these pollution-related strokes and heart attacks”
    “The study found that lungs inflamed by the pollution secrete a substance, interleukin-6, which causes an increased tendency for blood to coagulate or clot.
    This raises the risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke in people with cardiovascular disease such as coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure or a history of stroke.”
    “This is a critical missing piece of the puzzle that has eluded scientists for decades,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070921130738.htm
    Second World Conference on Smoking and Health – London 1971
    “But psychologist Daniel Horn, of the U.S. Public Health Service’s National Clearinghouse on Smoking and Health, observed that “under certain conditions” an increase in carbon monoxide from others’ cigarettes might be harmful to someone with a heart condiition.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/03659161.html
    Perfectly logical with the science of the day,but wrong.
    The anti-inflammatory nature of carbon monoxide has only been discovered in the last few years.
    “Carbon monoxide is an anti-inflammatory, and they want to explore its potential in treating high blood pressure, heart disease and possibly cancer”
    “Carbon monoxide causes vasorelaxation and is produced naturally as a result of the breakdown of haemoglobin. This can be seen in the healing process of a bruise, where various colour changes indicate the degradation of haemoglobin and release of carbon monoxide. The slow release of carbon monoxide reduces blood pressure for someone who has angina, for instance”
    http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2007/carbonmonoxide/
    “In fact CO is produced as a normal part of a reaction that generates antioxidants in the blood when tissues are inflamed. It was once dismissed as a worthless by-product of this reaction, but now it seems that the gas itself has the ability to calm inflammation in humans too.
    “Your body is already loaded with carbon monoxide,” says Huib Kerstjens, …”
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726484.100-carbon-monoxide-could-fight-disease.html?feedId=health_rss20
    Of course smoking humans are unlikely to know any of this, they just know it makes them feel better.
    Rose

  48. Anonymous says:

    How it works, if you can’t get away with it completely –
    Miners win historic compensation claim 1998
    “Six miners who suffered chronic ill health from inhaling coal dust during their work have won compensation claims against the UK Government.
    The High Court ruling opens the floodgate for tens of thousands of similar actions from miners who worked in the pits decades ago.
    It could lead to the highest ever damages bill against a single British employer – the cost to the taxpayer could reach £1bn.
    Mr Justice Turner awarded the six test case miners up to £10,000 each for pain, suffering and disability from emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
    All but one of the claims were reduced because smoking contributed to the diseases.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/49973.stm
    Rose

  49. Anonymous says:

    How it works, if you can’t get away with it completely –
    Miners win historic compensation claim 1998
    “Six miners who suffered chronic ill health from inhaling coal dust during their work have won compensation claims against the UK Government.
    The High Court ruling opens the floodgate for tens of thousands of similar actions from miners who worked in the pits decades ago.
    It could lead to the highest ever damages bill against a single British employer – the cost to the taxpayer could reach £1bn.
    Mr Justice Turner awarded the six test case miners up to £10,000 each for pain, suffering and disability from emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
    All but one of the claims were reduced because smoking contributed to the diseases.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/49973.stm
    Rose

  50. Anonymous says:

    How odd when smoking hasnt been proven to cause disease to start with! But coal miners black lung has…………

  51. Anonymous says:

    How odd when smoking hasnt been proven to cause disease to start with! But coal miners black lung has…………

  52. Anonymous says:

    “To understand why Hueper pressed his attack so insistently, we need to look beyond methods to what he saw as the broader implications of the new epidemiology.”
    He suspected that pressures from corporations and a state-run nuclear industry reached into the NCI itself, especially when Director Heller shut down Hueper’s epidemiological initiatives entirely in 1952.
    NCI epidemiologists continued to pursue field studies of certain industries, but Hueper inferred similar influences on his colleagues.”
    “Just as fundamentally, Hueper’s resistance reflected his concerns about how the new epidemiology would become translated into clinical and medicolegal decision making.
    If physicians came to agee that smoking was such a universal and important cause of lung cancer, even in their work-patients, then liability and compensation suits by workers in the industries that did cause lung cancer in workers, such as coke, chromate, or asbestos production stood in dire jeopardy.”
    “If a worker happened also to be a smoker – which most blue collar workers tended to be – then companies would argue that he brought it on himself.
    Epidemiologists themselves did not argue that the new smoking evidence distinguished the influence of workplace exposures from that of smoking in any individual case.
    Yet Hueper knew how defence attorneys and their medical witnesses would seize upon a plaintiff’s smoking to provide a “convenient escape for the guilty industrial part to pay compensation to the victim or to his widow and orphans.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1381166/?page=8
    Dr Hueper, being German and knowing where the “cigarette theorists” studies originated and what use they would be put to, I consider a very helpful source.
    Proctor even did a hatchet job on him.
    http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/p/proctor-cancer.html
    “Four University of Florida graduate students who did research for a tobacco company’s legal defense have been caught in a debate over the role of historians in such cases.
    The controversy stretches from Gainesville to Palo Alto, Calif., where Stanford University history professor Robert Proctor has publicly identified and criticized historians who work for the tobacco industry.
    Proctor’s discovery that UF graduate students in history were working for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. attorneys led him to e-mail objections to a UF professor, Betty Smocovitis.
    Their e-mail exchange caused a legal dispute about whether Proctor tampered with witnesses.
    Last month, a Volusia County circuit court judge issued a harsh rebuke that said Proctor had intended to harass and humiliate the students to either resign or run the risk of being exposed in national publications.”
    “To advance your own cause at the expense of graduate students trying to get through college strikes this court as appalling,” Judge Williams Parsons wrote in an order restricting Proctor’s contact with witnesses.”
    “These graduate students were doing totally appropriate work,” he said. “It’s a shame that someone that has an interest in the litigation would seek to interfere with them.”
    The Volusia County judge’s order called Proctor’s behavior “the lowest of the low.” It ordered him to have no contact with witnesses among other orders about his testimony.
    Proctor said the issue was a “classic tobacco industry distraction.”
    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20091208/ARTICLES/912081008/1118?p=1&tc=pg
    Rose

  53. Anonymous says:

    “To understand why Hueper pressed his attack so insistently, we need to look beyond methods to what he saw as the broader implications of the new epidemiology.”
    He suspected that pressures from corporations and a state-run nuclear industry reached into the NCI itself, especially when Director Heller shut down Hueper’s epidemiological initiatives entirely in 1952.
    NCI epidemiologists continued to pursue field studies of certain industries, but Hueper inferred similar influences on his colleagues.”
    “Just as fundamentally, Hueper’s resistance reflected his concerns about how the new epidemiology would become translated into clinical and medicolegal decision making.
    If physicians came to agee that smoking was such a universal and important cause of lung cancer, even in their work-patients, then liability and compensation suits by workers in the industries that did cause lung cancer in workers, such as coke, chromate, or asbestos production stood in dire jeopardy.”
    “If a worker happened also to be a smoker – which most blue collar workers tended to be – then companies would argue that he brought it on himself.
    Epidemiologists themselves did not argue that the new smoking evidence distinguished the influence of workplace exposures from that of smoking in any individual case.
    Yet Hueper knew how defence attorneys and their medical witnesses would seize upon a plaintiff’s smoking to provide a “convenient escape for the guilty industrial part to pay compensation to the victim or to his widow and orphans.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1381166/?page=8
    Dr Hueper, being German and knowing where the “cigarette theorists” studies originated and what use they would be put to, I consider a very helpful source.
    Proctor even did a hatchet job on him.
    http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/p/proctor-cancer.html
    “Four University of Florida graduate students who did research for a tobacco company’s legal defense have been caught in a debate over the role of historians in such cases.
    The controversy stretches from Gainesville to Palo Alto, Calif., where Stanford University history professor Robert Proctor has publicly identified and criticized historians who work for the tobacco industry.
    Proctor’s discovery that UF graduate students in history were working for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. attorneys led him to e-mail objections to a UF professor, Betty Smocovitis.
    Their e-mail exchange caused a legal dispute about whether Proctor tampered with witnesses.
    Last month, a Volusia County circuit court judge issued a harsh rebuke that said Proctor had intended to harass and humiliate the students to either resign or run the risk of being exposed in national publications.”
    “To advance your own cause at the expense of graduate students trying to get through college strikes this court as appalling,” Judge Williams Parsons wrote in an order restricting Proctor’s contact with witnesses.”
    “These graduate students were doing totally appropriate work,” he said. “It’s a shame that someone that has an interest in the litigation would seek to interfere with them.”
    The Volusia County judge’s order called Proctor’s behavior “the lowest of the low.” It ordered him to have no contact with witnesses among other orders about his testimony.
    Proctor said the issue was a “classic tobacco industry distraction.”
    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20091208/ARTICLES/912081008/1118?p=1&tc=pg
    Rose

  54. Anonymous says:

    “To understand why Hueper pressed his attack so insistently, we need to look beyond methods to what he saw as the broader implications of the new epidemiology.”
    He suspected that pressures from corporations and a state-run nuclear industry reached into the NCI itself, especially when Director Heller shut down Hueper’s epidemiological initiatives entirely in 1952.
    NCI epidemiologists continued to pursue field studies of certain industries, but Hueper inferred similar influences on his colleagues.”
    “Just as fundamentally, Hueper’s resistance reflected his concerns about how the new epidemiology would become translated into clinical and medicolegal decision making.
    If physicians came to agee that smoking was such a universal and important cause of lung cancer, even in their work-patients, then liability and compensation suits by workers in the industries that did cause lung cancer in workers, such as coke, chromate, or asbestos production stood in dire jeopardy.”
    “If a worker happened also to be a smoker – which most blue collar workers tended to be – then companies would argue that he brought it on himself.
    Epidemiologists themselves did not argue that the new smoking evidence distinguished the influence of workplace exposures from that of smoking in any individual case.
    Yet Hueper knew how defence attorneys and their medical witnesses would seize upon a plaintiff’s smoking to provide a “convenient escape for the guilty industrial part to pay compensation to the victim or to his widow and orphans.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1381166/?page=8
    Dr Hueper, being German and knowing where the “cigarette theorists” studies originated and what use they would be put to, I consider a very helpful source.
    Proctor even did a hatchet job on him.
    http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/p/proctor-cancer.html
    “Four University of Florida graduate students who did research for a tobacco company’s legal defense have been caught in a debate over the role of historians in such cases.
    The controversy stretches from Gainesville to Palo Alto, Calif., where Stanford University history professor Robert Proctor has publicly identified and criticized historians who work for the tobacco industry.
    Proctor’s discovery that UF graduate students in history were working for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. attorneys led him to e-mail objections to a UF professor, Betty Smocovitis.
    Their e-mail exchange caused a legal dispute about whether Proctor tampered with witnesses.
    Last month, a Volusia County circuit court judge issued a harsh rebuke that said Proctor had intended to harass and humiliate the students to either resign or run the risk of being exposed in national publications.”
    “To advance your own cause at the expense of graduate students trying to get through college strikes this court as appalling,” Judge Williams Parsons wrote in an order restricting Proctor’s contact with witnesses.”
    “These graduate students were doing totally appropriate work,” he said. “It’s a shame that someone that has an interest in the litigation would seek to interfere with them.”
    The Volusia County judge’s order called Proctor’s behavior “the lowest of the low.” It ordered him to have no contact with witnesses among other orders about his testimony.
    Proctor said the issue was a “classic tobacco industry distraction.”
    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20091208/ARTICLES/912081008/1118?p=1&tc=pg
    Rose

  55. Anonymous says:

    “Betty Smocovitis”
    Really, is that her real name?

  56. Anonymous says:

    “Betty Smocovitis”
    Really, is that her real name?

  57. junican says:

    BMJ blog
    Hello Frank. This is off topic, but I know that you are interested.
    The result of the BMJ competition has ben announced, AND THE WINNER IS!……jwatso!
    Here is a copy of a comment that I have made on DP’s site:
    I have to split this into two parts because of the ‘characters problem….
    The first that I knew about this silliness was your report, DP. Isn’t chance the most amazing thing? Day after day, I have looked at the VOTE and waited for the result, and been surprised that the thing is still going on! And then you beat me to it! Swine!
    Anyway, here is my reply to the ‘BMJ Editors’ who signed the the admission of defeat:
    “”I thank you for the award of the prize of a subscription to ‘Tobacco Control’ magazine. I am much gratified, since the last thing that I won, without much effort, was an Easter egg when I was 17 years old.
    Oh, by the way, there is a misconception in your above statement.
    Your statement suggests that I have ‘colleagues in the pro-smoking lobby’. This is not true. I have no ‘colleagues’. I am merely a little, old man of 71 years caring for a little old lady of 69 years who has MS, whose occasional trip to our local pub has been ruined by the catastrophic effects on our pubs of the smoking ban, and I am merely a commenter on various blogs, on which ‘pro-freedom’ matters are discussed. I also have no significant political associations, or any other similar associations other than ‘signing up’ to newspapers and such in order to comment. I comment on many of these sites about a multitude of things.
    Further, you say that my ‘colleagues’ on these blogs ‘tipped my idea over the top’. Erm.. 70% as opposed to the nearest, about 9%? Tipped over the top? No. There is a clear indication that your members, on the whole, are not interested and are probably not in agreement with your demonisation of smokers. Also, it may be that some other commenters on other blogs voted for my idea for fun, but it is also true, and something that you do not know, that a young man who is a relative of mine, put out the message to his friends on the internet to vote for my idea. They did not have to – they did it of their own accord. They did it because my relative suggested that they do. IS THIS AN ENORMOUS CONFOUNDER? Of course it is! In any study or survey, CONFOUNDERS can have an ENORMOUS effect.

  58. junican says:

    BMJ blog
    Hello Frank. This is off topic, but I know that you are interested.
    The result of the BMJ competition has ben announced, AND THE WINNER IS!……jwatso!
    Here is a copy of a comment that I have made on DP’s site:
    I have to split this into two parts because of the ‘characters problem….
    The first that I knew about this silliness was your report, DP. Isn’t chance the most amazing thing? Day after day, I have looked at the VOTE and waited for the result, and been surprised that the thing is still going on! And then you beat me to it! Swine!
    Anyway, here is my reply to the ‘BMJ Editors’ who signed the the admission of defeat:
    “”I thank you for the award of the prize of a subscription to ‘Tobacco Control’ magazine. I am much gratified, since the last thing that I won, without much effort, was an Easter egg when I was 17 years old.
    Oh, by the way, there is a misconception in your above statement.
    Your statement suggests that I have ‘colleagues in the pro-smoking lobby’. This is not true. I have no ‘colleagues’. I am merely a little, old man of 71 years caring for a little old lady of 69 years who has MS, whose occasional trip to our local pub has been ruined by the catastrophic effects on our pubs of the smoking ban, and I am merely a commenter on various blogs, on which ‘pro-freedom’ matters are discussed. I also have no significant political associations, or any other similar associations other than ‘signing up’ to newspapers and such in order to comment. I comment on many of these sites about a multitude of things.
    Further, you say that my ‘colleagues’ on these blogs ‘tipped my idea over the top’. Erm.. 70% as opposed to the nearest, about 9%? Tipped over the top? No. There is a clear indication that your members, on the whole, are not interested and are probably not in agreement with your demonisation of smokers. Also, it may be that some other commenters on other blogs voted for my idea for fun, but it is also true, and something that you do not know, that a young man who is a relative of mine, put out the message to his friends on the internet to vote for my idea. They did not have to – they did it of their own accord. They did it because my relative suggested that they do. IS THIS AN ENORMOUS CONFOUNDER? Of course it is! In any study or survey, CONFOUNDERS can have an ENORMOUS effect.

  59. junican says:

    BMJ blog
    Hello Frank. This is off topic, but I know that you are interested.
    The result of the BMJ competition has ben announced, AND THE WINNER IS!……jwatso!
    Here is a copy of a comment that I have made on DP’s site:
    I have to split this into two parts because of the ‘characters problem….
    The first that I knew about this silliness was your report, DP. Isn’t chance the most amazing thing? Day after day, I have looked at the VOTE and waited for the result, and been surprised that the thing is still going on! And then you beat me to it! Swine!
    Anyway, here is my reply to the ‘BMJ Editors’ who signed the the admission of defeat:
    “”I thank you for the award of the prize of a subscription to ‘Tobacco Control’ magazine. I am much gratified, since the last thing that I won, without much effort, was an Easter egg when I was 17 years old.
    Oh, by the way, there is a misconception in your above statement.
    Your statement suggests that I have ‘colleagues in the pro-smoking lobby’. This is not true. I have no ‘colleagues’. I am merely a little, old man of 71 years caring for a little old lady of 69 years who has MS, whose occasional trip to our local pub has been ruined by the catastrophic effects on our pubs of the smoking ban, and I am merely a commenter on various blogs, on which ‘pro-freedom’ matters are discussed. I also have no significant political associations, or any other similar associations other than ‘signing up’ to newspapers and such in order to comment. I comment on many of these sites about a multitude of things.
    Further, you say that my ‘colleagues’ on these blogs ‘tipped my idea over the top’. Erm.. 70% as opposed to the nearest, about 9%? Tipped over the top? No. There is a clear indication that your members, on the whole, are not interested and are probably not in agreement with your demonisation of smokers. Also, it may be that some other commenters on other blogs voted for my idea for fun, but it is also true, and something that you do not know, that a young man who is a relative of mine, put out the message to his friends on the internet to vote for my idea. They did not have to – they did it of their own accord. They did it because my relative suggested that they do. IS THIS AN ENORMOUS CONFOUNDER? Of course it is! In any study or survey, CONFOUNDERS can have an ENORMOUS effect.

  60. junican says:

    BMJ blog
    Furthermore, at no time did I state my full name in your blog comments. In the BT phone directory there are only 20 ‘J Watson’ s in the area in which I live (which you must know since you have been trawling various blogs for information about me) and only one specifically named. I may well, therefore, receive an amount of nasty correspondence. Now, it may be that your employees receive nasty correspondence, BUT THEY ARE PAID A SALARY! I am not. You should not have published my full name. The fact that, in a different context on a different blog, I told people who I was is no excuse.
    Furthermore, you say that my ‘idea’ was a good idea. It was not. Everyone with any sense knows that THE PROFITS of tobacco companies are spread all over the world among the shareholders, many of which are pension funds in the UK of the very organisations which promote Tobacco Control. Do the BMJ pension funds have investments in Tobacco Companies? Have the BMJ pension funds EVER had investments in Tobacco Companies? When did that cease to be the case, if it has?
    As for the HEALTH COSTS (of the enjoyment of tobacco) in my idea, I can only say that the idea of ‘Health Costs’ is ephemeral. The complexities are too great for proper science to come to any definite conclusion. The complexities of a mere three constituents in Electromagnetic Effects are huge – only THREE multivariables, the electric current, the electric field and the magnetic field – and no one has really bottomed it. It is obvious from the recently issued ‘Report of the Surgeon General 2010 re Smoking and Health’ that there are HUNDREDS of multivariables in the human genome – just too many multivariables to draw any specific conclusions. This fact cannot be hidden by bluster.
    Also, IT CANNOT BE TRUE that you knew about my little wind-ups (the ‘propaganda’ thing) before you chose my idea to be one of the six contenders for the prize. Not even tobacco control zealots could come up with any sensible or logical reason for choosing an idea from a person who is ‘a known colleague of people on pro-smoking blogs’ when there are others to choose from (no matter how silly they may be).
    Finally, it simply is not true that I, as a person who enjoys tobacco, have ever, in all my life, harmed in any way or caused the death of any other person in whose presence I have enjoyed my tobacco. Where is your proof? (And don’t say Roy Castle, because it is well known that Roy (God Bless Him) smoked cigars).
    Sincerely,
    Jwatso (aka Junican).””
    Since the BMJ published my full name, it would not surprise me if there are not those fanatics who might try to get at me, but I HONESTLY SWEAR THAT I HAVE NEVER RAPED ANY SWEDISH PERSONS, EITHER MALE OR FEMALE, AND I ALSO SWEAR THAT I WAS ELSEWHERE AT THE TIME, M’LUD.
    I am also posting this on Leg Iron and Frank D and Subro. I know that they are interested.

  61. junican says:

    BMJ blog
    Furthermore, at no time did I state my full name in your blog comments. In the BT phone directory there are only 20 ‘J Watson’ s in the area in which I live (which you must know since you have been trawling various blogs for information about me) and only one specifically named. I may well, therefore, receive an amount of nasty correspondence. Now, it may be that your employees receive nasty correspondence, BUT THEY ARE PAID A SALARY! I am not. You should not have published my full name. The fact that, in a different context on a different blog, I told people who I was is no excuse.
    Furthermore, you say that my ‘idea’ was a good idea. It was not. Everyone with any sense knows that THE PROFITS of tobacco companies are spread all over the world among the shareholders, many of which are pension funds in the UK of the very organisations which promote Tobacco Control. Do the BMJ pension funds have investments in Tobacco Companies? Have the BMJ pension funds EVER had investments in Tobacco Companies? When did that cease to be the case, if it has?
    As for the HEALTH COSTS (of the enjoyment of tobacco) in my idea, I can only say that the idea of ‘Health Costs’ is ephemeral. The complexities are too great for proper science to come to any definite conclusion. The complexities of a mere three constituents in Electromagnetic Effects are huge – only THREE multivariables, the electric current, the electric field and the magnetic field – and no one has really bottomed it. It is obvious from the recently issued ‘Report of the Surgeon General 2010 re Smoking and Health’ that there are HUNDREDS of multivariables in the human genome – just too many multivariables to draw any specific conclusions. This fact cannot be hidden by bluster.
    Also, IT CANNOT BE TRUE that you knew about my little wind-ups (the ‘propaganda’ thing) before you chose my idea to be one of the six contenders for the prize. Not even tobacco control zealots could come up with any sensible or logical reason for choosing an idea from a person who is ‘a known colleague of people on pro-smoking blogs’ when there are others to choose from (no matter how silly they may be).
    Finally, it simply is not true that I, as a person who enjoys tobacco, have ever, in all my life, harmed in any way or caused the death of any other person in whose presence I have enjoyed my tobacco. Where is your proof? (And don’t say Roy Castle, because it is well known that Roy (God Bless Him) smoked cigars).
    Sincerely,
    Jwatso (aka Junican).””
    Since the BMJ published my full name, it would not surprise me if there are not those fanatics who might try to get at me, but I HONESTLY SWEAR THAT I HAVE NEVER RAPED ANY SWEDISH PERSONS, EITHER MALE OR FEMALE, AND I ALSO SWEAR THAT I WAS ELSEWHERE AT THE TIME, M’LUD.
    I am also posting this on Leg Iron and Frank D and Subro. I know that they are interested.

  62. junican says:

    BMJ blog
    Furthermore, at no time did I state my full name in your blog comments. In the BT phone directory there are only 20 ‘J Watson’ s in the area in which I live (which you must know since you have been trawling various blogs for information about me) and only one specifically named. I may well, therefore, receive an amount of nasty correspondence. Now, it may be that your employees receive nasty correspondence, BUT THEY ARE PAID A SALARY! I am not. You should not have published my full name. The fact that, in a different context on a different blog, I told people who I was is no excuse.
    Furthermore, you say that my ‘idea’ was a good idea. It was not. Everyone with any sense knows that THE PROFITS of tobacco companies are spread all over the world among the shareholders, many of which are pension funds in the UK of the very organisations which promote Tobacco Control. Do the BMJ pension funds have investments in Tobacco Companies? Have the BMJ pension funds EVER had investments in Tobacco Companies? When did that cease to be the case, if it has?
    As for the HEALTH COSTS (of the enjoyment of tobacco) in my idea, I can only say that the idea of ‘Health Costs’ is ephemeral. The complexities are too great for proper science to come to any definite conclusion. The complexities of a mere three constituents in Electromagnetic Effects are huge – only THREE multivariables, the electric current, the electric field and the magnetic field – and no one has really bottomed it. It is obvious from the recently issued ‘Report of the Surgeon General 2010 re Smoking and Health’ that there are HUNDREDS of multivariables in the human genome – just too many multivariables to draw any specific conclusions. This fact cannot be hidden by bluster.
    Also, IT CANNOT BE TRUE that you knew about my little wind-ups (the ‘propaganda’ thing) before you chose my idea to be one of the six contenders for the prize. Not even tobacco control zealots could come up with any sensible or logical reason for choosing an idea from a person who is ‘a known colleague of people on pro-smoking blogs’ when there are others to choose from (no matter how silly they may be).
    Finally, it simply is not true that I, as a person who enjoys tobacco, have ever, in all my life, harmed in any way or caused the death of any other person in whose presence I have enjoyed my tobacco. Where is your proof? (And don’t say Roy Castle, because it is well known that Roy (God Bless Him) smoked cigars).
    Sincerely,
    Jwatso (aka Junican).””
    Since the BMJ published my full name, it would not surprise me if there are not those fanatics who might try to get at me, but I HONESTLY SWEAR THAT I HAVE NEVER RAPED ANY SWEDISH PERSONS, EITHER MALE OR FEMALE, AND I ALSO SWEAR THAT I WAS ELSEWHERE AT THE TIME, M’LUD.
    I am also posting this on Leg Iron and Frank D and Subro. I know that they are interested.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Apologies for forgetting to mention the reducing agent for chromium VI – it was ascorbate (vitamin C).

  64. Anonymous says:

    Apologies for forgetting to mention the reducing agent for chromium VI – it was ascorbate (vitamin C).

  65. Anonymous says:

    That’s really interesting information about the London smog — and I get the point about tobacco being the scapegoat. There’s a lot there to think about.
    GDF

  66. Anonymous says:

    That’s really interesting information about the London smog — and I get the point about tobacco being the scapegoat. There’s a lot there to think about.
    GDF

  67. Anonymous says:

    That’s really interesting information about the London smog — and I get the point about tobacco being the scapegoat. There’s a lot there to think about.
    GDF

    • Anonymous says:

      GDF
      You might find this interesting.
      Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
      “During the catastrophic PM exposure episode in London in December 1952, some 4,000 excess deaths occurred at the height of the event. The extreme mortality during that episode and the preservation of archival autopsy tissues allow us the unique opportunity to report on the form and composition of December 1952 London PM in situ in tissues from persons known to have died from the smog exposure. Because absolute increases in mortality with current levels of PM in Western Europe and North America are low, analogous tissues are unlikely to be contemporaneously available. Taking a lung compartment (airway, airspace, interstitium, and lymph node) approach, we differentiated exposures contemporary with death from those of earlier origin. Electron microscopic analyses revealed the dominance of retained soot and a surfeit of other particle types. A variety of metal-bearing particle types were found in all compartments, but Pb, Zn, and SnZn types appeared the least biopersistent. The results support the acute toxicologic importance of ultrafine carbonaceous and metal PM”
      “To test the hypothesis that archived lung tissue would preserve a record of the historic aerosol, we initially reviewed autopsy records for selected years in the 1950s and 1960s at the Royal London Hospital (RLH) to determine the availability of suitable material. This was facilitated by the fact that during the 1950s and 1960s, the autopsy rate at the RLH was > 60%, with > 400 autopsies/year. Our review focused on two sensitive populations: infants ( 45 years) with autopsy diagnoses including either chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or congestive heart failure.”
      “Recent studies have shown that lung inflammation is mediated by water-soluble components of common atmospheric constituents such as residual oil fly ash (ROFA) (Dreher et al. 1997). The importance of soluble metal components in ambient air has been reinforced by experiments with historic PM from the Utah Valley using healthy human subjects (Ghio and Devlin 2001). A marked inflammatory response was induced when extracts with the highest soluble metal content (most notably Zn), were administered. Interestingly, soluble Zn (a metallic element and a PM constituent that we find not to be significantly retained beyond the airway aggregates) has been identified (rather than any other metal component) as the cause of cell injury in animal exposure studies (Adamson et al. 2000)”
      “Perhaps an unsurprising finding of this study was the identification of a substantial burden of Pb PM in the lung airway aggregates. Because lead as a fuel additive has been greatly reduced or eliminated, little current toxicologic research related to PM has focused on the role of Pb. However, Pb is still used as a gasoline additive in many countries.
      Given that Pb is one of the predominant PM metals observed here, it may be that Pb deserves more study. A recent analysis of aerosols in Boston (Godleski et al. 2002) indicates a strong correlation between Pb and adverse health effects in animal subjects.
      The consistent identification of Sb-bearing particles is more surprising. The origin of this PM component is uncertain, although coal-fired plants, incinerators, and smelters are all possible sources. Elevated levels of Sb in the London aerosol is supported by evidence of high concentrations of Sb in London street dust (Fergusson and Ryan 1984)”
      http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.6114
      Rose

      • Anonymous says:

        And this was the official position.
        Professor Patrick Lawther: authority on environmental medicine
        “In 1955 Lawther joined the staff of the Medical Research Council (MRC) and was appointed director of the Group for Research on Atmospheric Pollution (which later became the air pollution research unit, then the environmental hazards unit, and finally, in 1977, the clinical section of the MRC toxicology Unit). In 1977 Lawther became the head of the clinical section.”
        “During the long campaign to banish lead from petrol, an influential report entitled Lead or Health suggested that 70 per cent of lead in our bodies came from vehicle exhausts, some directly from the air and some through fallout on to the fields where our food is grown.
        A Department of Health and Social Security working party on lead in the environment, under Lawther’s chairmanship, roundly dismissed the claim. After a two-year study it concluded that lead in petrol contributed only 10 per cent of the average amount of lead in the body. But other advisers eventually forced the Government to agree to the introduction of lead-free petrol.
        After the introduction of lead-free petrol, levels of lead in blood fell by roughly two thirds in British adults and by between 70 per cent and 80 per cent in their children”
        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article4206724.ece
        Lead
        Firms ‘knew of leaded petrol dangers in 20s’
        “General Motors, duPont and Standard Oil were making billions of dollars worldwide from selling the lead formula which they had patented while paying for and controlling the research into the health effects for more than 40 years.
        The research always favoured the industry’s pro-lead views or was suppressed, Mr Kitman found.”
        http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=2549
        So who was funding all this?
        Medical Research Council
        Rockefeller Medical Fellowships 1932 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2520659/pdf/brmedj07385-0032a.pdf
        Big Oil, purely coincidence, I’m sure.
        Rose

        • Anonymous says:

          Another little snippet, which might be of no relevance, but if it’s general would account for some of the gender discrepancies.
          “In another first, the study found men were twice as likely to suffer immune damage from the sun than women.”
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/sophie_scott/newsitems/s1366452.htm
          Though women smoked in the 50’s, most of them worked until they married, then spent the rest of their lives as housewives in the suburbs.
          Rose

  68. Anonymous says:

    GDF
    You might find this interesting.
    Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
    “During the catastrophic PM exposure episode in London in December 1952, some 4,000 excess deaths occurred at the height of the event. The extreme mortality during that episode and the preservation of archival autopsy tissues allow us the unique opportunity to report on the form and composition of December 1952 London PM in situ in tissues from persons known to have died from the smog exposure. Because absolute increases in mortality with current levels of PM in Western Europe and North America are low, analogous tissues are unlikely to be contemporaneously available. Taking a lung compartment (airway, airspace, interstitium, and lymph node) approach, we differentiated exposures contemporary with death from those of earlier origin. Electron microscopic analyses revealed the dominance of retained soot and a surfeit of other particle types. A variety of metal-bearing particle types were found in all compartments, but Pb, Zn, and SnZn types appeared the least biopersistent. The results support the acute toxicologic importance of ultrafine carbonaceous and metal PM”
    “To test the hypothesis that archived lung tissue would preserve a record of the historic aerosol, we initially reviewed autopsy records for selected years in the 1950s and 1960s at the Royal London Hospital (RLH) to determine the availability of suitable material. This was facilitated by the fact that during the 1950s and 1960s, the autopsy rate at the RLH was > 60%, with > 400 autopsies/year. Our review focused on two sensitive populations: infants ( 45 years) with autopsy diagnoses including either chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or congestive heart failure.”
    “Recent studies have shown that lung inflammation is mediated by water-soluble components of common atmospheric constituents such as residual oil fly ash (ROFA) (Dreher et al. 1997). The importance of soluble metal components in ambient air has been reinforced by experiments with historic PM from the Utah Valley using healthy human subjects (Ghio and Devlin 2001). A marked inflammatory response was induced when extracts with the highest soluble metal content (most notably Zn), were administered. Interestingly, soluble Zn (a metallic element and a PM constituent that we find not to be significantly retained beyond the airway aggregates) has been identified (rather than any other metal component) as the cause of cell injury in animal exposure studies (Adamson et al. 2000)”
    “Perhaps an unsurprising finding of this study was the identification of a substantial burden of Pb PM in the lung airway aggregates. Because lead as a fuel additive has been greatly reduced or eliminated, little current toxicologic research related to PM has focused on the role of Pb. However, Pb is still used as a gasoline additive in many countries.
    Given that Pb is one of the predominant PM metals observed here, it may be that Pb deserves more study. A recent analysis of aerosols in Boston (Godleski et al. 2002) indicates a strong correlation between Pb and adverse health effects in animal subjects.
    The consistent identification of Sb-bearing particles is more surprising. The origin of this PM component is uncertain, although coal-fired plants, incinerators, and smelters are all possible sources. Elevated levels of Sb in the London aerosol is supported by evidence of high concentrations of Sb in London street dust (Fergusson and Ryan 1984)”
    http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.6114
    Rose

  69. Anonymous says:

    GDF
    You might find this interesting.
    Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
    “During the catastrophic PM exposure episode in London in December 1952, some 4,000 excess deaths occurred at the height of the event. The extreme mortality during that episode and the preservation of archival autopsy tissues allow us the unique opportunity to report on the form and composition of December 1952 London PM in situ in tissues from persons known to have died from the smog exposure. Because absolute increases in mortality with current levels of PM in Western Europe and North America are low, analogous tissues are unlikely to be contemporaneously available. Taking a lung compartment (airway, airspace, interstitium, and lymph node) approach, we differentiated exposures contemporary with death from those of earlier origin. Electron microscopic analyses revealed the dominance of retained soot and a surfeit of other particle types. A variety of metal-bearing particle types were found in all compartments, but Pb, Zn, and SnZn types appeared the least biopersistent. The results support the acute toxicologic importance of ultrafine carbonaceous and metal PM”
    “To test the hypothesis that archived lung tissue would preserve a record of the historic aerosol, we initially reviewed autopsy records for selected years in the 1950s and 1960s at the Royal London Hospital (RLH) to determine the availability of suitable material. This was facilitated by the fact that during the 1950s and 1960s, the autopsy rate at the RLH was > 60%, with > 400 autopsies/year. Our review focused on two sensitive populations: infants ( 45 years) with autopsy diagnoses including either chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or congestive heart failure.”
    “Recent studies have shown that lung inflammation is mediated by water-soluble components of common atmospheric constituents such as residual oil fly ash (ROFA) (Dreher et al. 1997). The importance of soluble metal components in ambient air has been reinforced by experiments with historic PM from the Utah Valley using healthy human subjects (Ghio and Devlin 2001). A marked inflammatory response was induced when extracts with the highest soluble metal content (most notably Zn), were administered. Interestingly, soluble Zn (a metallic element and a PM constituent that we find not to be significantly retained beyond the airway aggregates) has been identified (rather than any other metal component) as the cause of cell injury in animal exposure studies (Adamson et al. 2000)”
    “Perhaps an unsurprising finding of this study was the identification of a substantial burden of Pb PM in the lung airway aggregates. Because lead as a fuel additive has been greatly reduced or eliminated, little current toxicologic research related to PM has focused on the role of Pb. However, Pb is still used as a gasoline additive in many countries.
    Given that Pb is one of the predominant PM metals observed here, it may be that Pb deserves more study. A recent analysis of aerosols in Boston (Godleski et al. 2002) indicates a strong correlation between Pb and adverse health effects in animal subjects.
    The consistent identification of Sb-bearing particles is more surprising. The origin of this PM component is uncertain, although coal-fired plants, incinerators, and smelters are all possible sources. Elevated levels of Sb in the London aerosol is supported by evidence of high concentrations of Sb in London street dust (Fergusson and Ryan 1984)”
    http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.6114
    Rose

  70. Anonymous says:

    And this was the official position.
    Professor Patrick Lawther: authority on environmental medicine
    “In 1955 Lawther joined the staff of the Medical Research Council (MRC) and was appointed director of the Group for Research on Atmospheric Pollution (which later became the air pollution research unit, then the environmental hazards unit, and finally, in 1977, the clinical section of the MRC toxicology Unit). In 1977 Lawther became the head of the clinical section.”
    “During the long campaign to banish lead from petrol, an influential report entitled Lead or Health suggested that 70 per cent of lead in our bodies came from vehicle exhausts, some directly from the air and some through fallout on to the fields where our food is grown.
    A Department of Health and Social Security working party on lead in the environment, under Lawther’s chairmanship, roundly dismissed the claim. After a two-year study it concluded that lead in petrol contributed only 10 per cent of the average amount of lead in the body. But other advisers eventually forced the Government to agree to the introduction of lead-free petrol.
    After the introduction of lead-free petrol, levels of lead in blood fell by roughly two thirds in British adults and by between 70 per cent and 80 per cent in their children”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article4206724.ece
    Lead
    Firms ‘knew of leaded petrol dangers in 20s’
    “General Motors, duPont and Standard Oil were making billions of dollars worldwide from selling the lead formula which they had patented while paying for and controlling the research into the health effects for more than 40 years.
    The research always favoured the industry’s pro-lead views or was suppressed, Mr Kitman found.”
    http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=2549
    So who was funding all this?
    Medical Research Council
    Rockefeller Medical Fellowships 1932 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2520659/pdf/brmedj07385-0032a.pdf
    Big Oil, purely coincidence, I’m sure.
    Rose

  71. Anonymous says:

    And this was the official position.
    Professor Patrick Lawther: authority on environmental medicine
    “In 1955 Lawther joined the staff of the Medical Research Council (MRC) and was appointed director of the Group for Research on Atmospheric Pollution (which later became the air pollution research unit, then the environmental hazards unit, and finally, in 1977, the clinical section of the MRC toxicology Unit). In 1977 Lawther became the head of the clinical section.”
    “During the long campaign to banish lead from petrol, an influential report entitled Lead or Health suggested that 70 per cent of lead in our bodies came from vehicle exhausts, some directly from the air and some through fallout on to the fields where our food is grown.
    A Department of Health and Social Security working party on lead in the environment, under Lawther’s chairmanship, roundly dismissed the claim. After a two-year study it concluded that lead in petrol contributed only 10 per cent of the average amount of lead in the body. But other advisers eventually forced the Government to agree to the introduction of lead-free petrol.
    After the introduction of lead-free petrol, levels of lead in blood fell by roughly two thirds in British adults and by between 70 per cent and 80 per cent in their children”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article4206724.ece
    Lead
    Firms ‘knew of leaded petrol dangers in 20s’
    “General Motors, duPont and Standard Oil were making billions of dollars worldwide from selling the lead formula which they had patented while paying for and controlling the research into the health effects for more than 40 years.
    The research always favoured the industry’s pro-lead views or was suppressed, Mr Kitman found.”
    http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=2549
    So who was funding all this?
    Medical Research Council
    Rockefeller Medical Fellowships 1932 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2520659/pdf/brmedj07385-0032a.pdf
    Big Oil, purely coincidence, I’m sure.
    Rose

  72. Anonymous says:

    Another little snippet, which might be of no relevance, but if it’s general would account for some of the gender discrepancies.
    “In another first, the study found men were twice as likely to suffer immune damage from the sun than women.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/sophie_scott/newsitems/s1366452.htm
    Though women smoked in the 50’s, most of them worked until they married, then spent the rest of their lives as housewives in the suburbs.
    Rose

  73. Anonymous says:

    Another little snippet, which might be of no relevance, but if it’s general would account for some of the gender discrepancies.
    “In another first, the study found men were twice as likely to suffer immune damage from the sun than women.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/sophie_scott/newsitems/s1366452.htm
    Though women smoked in the 50’s, most of them worked until they married, then spent the rest of their lives as housewives in the suburbs.
    Rose

  74. Anonymous says:

    Merry Christmas to all!!!
    It has been stated that over a lifetime 1 in 10 smokers will die from lung cancer caused by their smoking.
    Let’s look at 30 years worth of smoking ’caused’ lung cancer deaths and the number of current smokers involved.
    There are now about 46 million current smokers and 48 million ex-smokers that were current smokers at one time.
    TC antis tell us that 400,000 smokers die per year due to their smoking. At one time or another, each of those 400,000 would have been a current smoker and 400,000 per year times 30 years is another 12 million smokers that were current smokers.
    CDC data shows that 20.9% of the yearly 157,000 lung cancer deaths happen to current smokers.
    That is 32,814 lung cancer deaths per 46 million current smokers or 7/10,000.
    Never-smokers lung cancer death rate is 2/10,000.
    Since current smokers would have 2/10,000 lung cancer deaths had they not smoked, only 5/10,000 MIGHT be said to be ’caused’ by their smoking.
    5/7 is 71%.
    71% of 32,814 is 23,298 current smokers lung cancer deaths per year that might be said to be caused by smoking.
    23,298 deaths per year times 30 years equals 698,940 lung cancer deaths to the 106 million people that were current smokers.
    That is 1 death per 152 of the current smokers.
    Over a 30 year period, 99.34% of the people that were current smokers did NOT die from lung cancer.
    Over a 30 year period ONLY 2/3rds of 1% of the people that were current smokers died from lung cancer that MIGHT be said to be ’caused’ by their smoking.
    30 years is not a lifetime; but, it is a very long time.
    Just a thought about the hospital study.
    The fact that 97% of the lung cancer patients in a hospital are smokers does NOT show that smoking ’caused’ their lung cancer.
    If there are 700 smoker lung cancer patients and the hospital serves an area that has 1 million smokers,that shows us that 99.93% of the smokers do NOT have lung cancer.
    Public Health would be better served if medicine would try to find what caused 7/100th of 1% of the smokers to get lung cancer and not just blame their smoking!!
    Gary K.

  75. Anonymous says:

    Merry Christmas to all!!!
    It has been stated that over a lifetime 1 in 10 smokers will die from lung cancer caused by their smoking.
    Let’s look at 30 years worth of smoking ’caused’ lung cancer deaths and the number of current smokers involved.
    There are now about 46 million current smokers and 48 million ex-smokers that were current smokers at one time.
    TC antis tell us that 400,000 smokers die per year due to their smoking. At one time or another, each of those 400,000 would have been a current smoker and 400,000 per year times 30 years is another 12 million smokers that were current smokers.
    CDC data shows that 20.9% of the yearly 157,000 lung cancer deaths happen to current smokers.
    That is 32,814 lung cancer deaths per 46 million current smokers or 7/10,000.
    Never-smokers lung cancer death rate is 2/10,000.
    Since current smokers would have 2/10,000 lung cancer deaths had they not smoked, only 5/10,000 MIGHT be said to be ’caused’ by their smoking.
    5/7 is 71%.
    71% of 32,814 is 23,298 current smokers lung cancer deaths per year that might be said to be caused by smoking.
    23,298 deaths per year times 30 years equals 698,940 lung cancer deaths to the 106 million people that were current smokers.
    That is 1 death per 152 of the current smokers.
    Over a 30 year period, 99.34% of the people that were current smokers did NOT die from lung cancer.
    Over a 30 year period ONLY 2/3rds of 1% of the people that were current smokers died from lung cancer that MIGHT be said to be ’caused’ by their smoking.
    30 years is not a lifetime; but, it is a very long time.
    Just a thought about the hospital study.
    The fact that 97% of the lung cancer patients in a hospital are smokers does NOT show that smoking ’caused’ their lung cancer.
    If there are 700 smoker lung cancer patients and the hospital serves an area that has 1 million smokers,that shows us that 99.93% of the smokers do NOT have lung cancer.
    Public Health would be better served if medicine would try to find what caused 7/100th of 1% of the smokers to get lung cancer and not just blame their smoking!!
    Gary K.

  76. Anonymous says:

    Merry Christmas to all!!!
    It has been stated that over a lifetime 1 in 10 smokers will die from lung cancer caused by their smoking.
    Let’s look at 30 years worth of smoking ’caused’ lung cancer deaths and the number of current smokers involved.
    There are now about 46 million current smokers and 48 million ex-smokers that were current smokers at one time.
    TC antis tell us that 400,000 smokers die per year due to their smoking. At one time or another, each of those 400,000 would have been a current smoker and 400,000 per year times 30 years is another 12 million smokers that were current smokers.
    CDC data shows that 20.9% of the yearly 157,000 lung cancer deaths happen to current smokers.
    That is 32,814 lung cancer deaths per 46 million current smokers or 7/10,000.
    Never-smokers lung cancer death rate is 2/10,000.
    Since current smokers would have 2/10,000 lung cancer deaths had they not smoked, only 5/10,000 MIGHT be said to be ’caused’ by their smoking.
    5/7 is 71%.
    71% of 32,814 is 23,298 current smokers lung cancer deaths per year that might be said to be caused by smoking.
    23,298 deaths per year times 30 years equals 698,940 lung cancer deaths to the 106 million people that were current smokers.
    That is 1 death per 152 of the current smokers.
    Over a 30 year period, 99.34% of the people that were current smokers did NOT die from lung cancer.
    Over a 30 year period ONLY 2/3rds of 1% of the people that were current smokers died from lung cancer that MIGHT be said to be ’caused’ by their smoking.
    30 years is not a lifetime; but, it is a very long time.
    Just a thought about the hospital study.
    The fact that 97% of the lung cancer patients in a hospital are smokers does NOT show that smoking ’caused’ their lung cancer.
    If there are 700 smoker lung cancer patients and the hospital serves an area that has 1 million smokers,that shows us that 99.93% of the smokers do NOT have lung cancer.
    Public Health would be better served if medicine would try to find what caused 7/100th of 1% of the smokers to get lung cancer and not just blame their smoking!!
    Gary K.

  77. Anonymous says:

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
    Access seems full & free here:-
    Are you running some script-blocking extensions &or etc.?
    Article’s interesting;- thanks for the tip!
    “The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.”
    Ross

  78. Anonymous says:

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
    Access seems full & free here:-
    Are you running some script-blocking extensions &or etc.?
    Article’s interesting;- thanks for the tip!
    “The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.”
    Ross

  79. Anonymous says:

    What are the laws about selling concert tickets online?
    Just wondering if eBay enables you to market [url=http://www.ticketchoice.com.au]concert tickets[/url] on-line? Do you know if you’ll find any restrictions based on what country you’re in?
    My parents have just known as me and asked if i could “get rid” of their two tickets to a concert as they wont be able to make it due to yet another family event.
    Apart from asking close friends etc, i thought ebay would be a great location to sell them.
    But whats ebay’s policy on selling tickets? Ive heard alot about it about the news but ive forgotten what happened.
    and if it matters, the concert is within this coming month
    Thanks in advance for the advice.

  80. Anonymous says:

    What are the laws about selling concert tickets online?
    Just wondering if eBay enables you to market [url=http://www.ticketchoice.com.au]concert tickets[/url] on-line? Do you know if you’ll find any restrictions based on what country you’re in?
    My parents have just known as me and asked if i could “get rid” of their two tickets to a concert as they wont be able to make it due to yet another family event.
    Apart from asking close friends etc, i thought ebay would be a great location to sell them.
    But whats ebay’s policy on selling tickets? Ive heard alot about it about the news but ive forgotten what happened.
    and if it matters, the concert is within this coming month
    Thanks in advance for the advice.

  81. Anonymous says:

    What are the laws about selling concert tickets online?
    Just wondering if eBay enables you to market [url=http://www.ticketchoice.com.au]concert tickets[/url] on-line? Do you know if you’ll find any restrictions based on what country you’re in?
    My parents have just known as me and asked if i could “get rid” of their two tickets to a concert as they wont be able to make it due to yet another family event.
    Apart from asking close friends etc, i thought ebay would be a great location to sell them.
    But whats ebay’s policy on selling tickets? Ive heard alot about it about the news but ive forgotten what happened.
    and if it matters, the concert is within this coming month
    Thanks in advance for the advice.

  82. Anonymous says:

    bphejj walmart pharmacy catonsville maryland
    university of chicago geographic medicine scholars [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/93338#984] sildenafil and dapoxetine [/url] hand written pharmacy script example
    bible pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/47519#980] sildenafil citrate dapoxetine viagra [/url] medicine cabinet price comparison
    carcinogens and nuclear medicine [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/34517#197] dapoxetine sildenafil super p force [/url] tongkat ali benefits traditional medicine
    orthopaedic and sports medicine ct [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/29128#108] to buy dapoxetine [/url] bellevue pharm
    otc medicine for bacteria vaginosis [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/69405#063] what is dapoxetine [/url] cherokee medicine whell
    alternative medicine for ranexa [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/59516#553] what is priligy approved [/url] mail order pharmacy
    donough pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/12119#736] where can i buy dapoxetine side effects [/url] pmdd and chinese medicine
    american journal of health systems pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/30248#004] where can i buy priligy prescription [/url] naplex pharmacy cheating
    ferris state pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/40133#420] where can i purchase dapoxetine [/url] family health center pharmacy laurel ms
    iloilo doctors hospital pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/75948#148] where to buy dapoxetine online pe [/url] hair loos and thyroid medicines
    health animal alternative medicine equine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/93338#828] and dapoxetine sildenafil citrate kill canadian pharmacy
    texas college of chiropractic medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/47519#354] link manchester pharmacy
    canadian school of naturopathic medicine canada <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/34517#117] sildenafil dapoxetine buy online entry level pharmacy jobs
    university pharmacy colorado <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/29128#046] to buy dapoxetine generic 16th avenue pharmacy inc
    moyes pharmacy <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/69405#869] what is dapoxetine pharmacy law education
    plano sports medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/59516#966] what is priligy moses cone family medicine kernersville
    laxative medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/12119#790] where can i buy dapoxetine cheapest hot tub rash medicine
    alternative medicine washington dcs <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/30248#427] where can i buy priligy online off shore pharmacies
    uw medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/40133#476] link complimentary and alternative medicine for menopause
    throat medicines of the 1950 s <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/75948#405] where to buy dapoxetine online pe pharmacy drug information position openings

  83. Anonymous says:

    bphejj walmart pharmacy catonsville maryland
    university of chicago geographic medicine scholars [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/93338#984] sildenafil and dapoxetine [/url] hand written pharmacy script example
    bible pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/47519#980] sildenafil citrate dapoxetine viagra [/url] medicine cabinet price comparison
    carcinogens and nuclear medicine [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/34517#197] dapoxetine sildenafil super p force [/url] tongkat ali benefits traditional medicine
    orthopaedic and sports medicine ct [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/29128#108] to buy dapoxetine [/url] bellevue pharm
    otc medicine for bacteria vaginosis [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/69405#063] what is dapoxetine [/url] cherokee medicine whell
    alternative medicine for ranexa [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/59516#553] what is priligy approved [/url] mail order pharmacy
    donough pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/12119#736] where can i buy dapoxetine side effects [/url] pmdd and chinese medicine
    american journal of health systems pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/30248#004] where can i buy priligy prescription [/url] naplex pharmacy cheating
    ferris state pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/40133#420] where can i purchase dapoxetine [/url] family health center pharmacy laurel ms
    iloilo doctors hospital pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/75948#148] where to buy dapoxetine online pe [/url] hair loos and thyroid medicines
    health animal alternative medicine equine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/93338#828] and dapoxetine sildenafil citrate kill canadian pharmacy
    texas college of chiropractic medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/47519#354] link manchester pharmacy
    canadian school of naturopathic medicine canada <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/34517#117] sildenafil dapoxetine buy online entry level pharmacy jobs
    university pharmacy colorado <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/29128#046] to buy dapoxetine generic 16th avenue pharmacy inc
    moyes pharmacy <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/69405#869] what is dapoxetine pharmacy law education
    plano sports medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/59516#966] what is priligy moses cone family medicine kernersville
    laxative medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/12119#790] where can i buy dapoxetine cheapest hot tub rash medicine
    alternative medicine washington dcs <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/30248#427] where can i buy priligy online off shore pharmacies
    uw medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/40133#476] link complimentary and alternative medicine for menopause
    throat medicines of the 1950 s <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/75948#405] where to buy dapoxetine online pe pharmacy drug information position openings

  84. Anonymous says:

    bphejj walmart pharmacy catonsville maryland
    university of chicago geographic medicine scholars [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/93338#984] sildenafil and dapoxetine [/url] hand written pharmacy script example
    bible pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/47519#980] sildenafil citrate dapoxetine viagra [/url] medicine cabinet price comparison
    carcinogens and nuclear medicine [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/34517#197] dapoxetine sildenafil super p force [/url] tongkat ali benefits traditional medicine
    orthopaedic and sports medicine ct [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/29128#108] to buy dapoxetine [/url] bellevue pharm
    otc medicine for bacteria vaginosis [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/69405#063] what is dapoxetine [/url] cherokee medicine whell
    alternative medicine for ranexa [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/59516#553] what is priligy approved [/url] mail order pharmacy
    donough pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/12119#736] where can i buy dapoxetine side effects [/url] pmdd and chinese medicine
    american journal of health systems pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/30248#004] where can i buy priligy prescription [/url] naplex pharmacy cheating
    ferris state pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/40133#420] where can i purchase dapoxetine [/url] family health center pharmacy laurel ms
    iloilo doctors hospital pharmacy [url=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/75948#148] where to buy dapoxetine online pe [/url] hair loos and thyroid medicines
    health animal alternative medicine equine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/93338#828] and dapoxetine sildenafil citrate kill canadian pharmacy
    texas college of chiropractic medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/47519#354] link manchester pharmacy
    canadian school of naturopathic medicine canada <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/34517#117] sildenafil dapoxetine buy online entry level pharmacy jobs
    university pharmacy colorado <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/29128#046] to buy dapoxetine generic 16th avenue pharmacy inc
    moyes pharmacy <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/69405#869] what is dapoxetine pharmacy law education
    plano sports medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/59516#966] what is priligy moses cone family medicine kernersville
    laxative medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/12119#790] where can i buy dapoxetine cheapest hot tub rash medicine
    alternative medicine washington dcs <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/30248#427] where can i buy priligy online off shore pharmacies
    uw medicine <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/40133#476] link complimentary and alternative medicine for menopause
    throat medicines of the 1950 s <a href=http://s4.zetaboards.com/priligy/pages/75948#405] where to buy dapoxetine online pe pharmacy drug information position openings

  85. Anonymous says:

    Good morning :)
    Hey just joining, glad to be in! I’m Yael and I am inspired by my husband, I enjoy running and being wholesome :)
    Sooo anyways, plenty about me, see you all around and hello yet again haha.
    PS, how do I make myself have a cool title like some people here have?

  86. Anonymous says:

    Good morning :)
    Hey just joining, glad to be in! I’m Yael and I am inspired by my husband, I enjoy running and being wholesome :)
    Sooo anyways, plenty about me, see you all around and hello yet again haha.
    PS, how do I make myself have a cool title like some people here have?

  87. Anonymous says:

    Good morning :)
    Hey just joining, glad to be in! I’m Yael and I am inspired by my husband, I enjoy running and being wholesome :)
    Sooo anyways, plenty about me, see you all around and hello yet again haha.
    PS, how do I make myself have a cool title like some people here have?

  88. Anonymous says:

    Frank, do you have an URL for that graph? I would be grateful.
    The only odd thing is the stretching out in the last couple of millenniae. Also, I wonder why the blue lines appear at about -31.60. Why is the blue section not around -31.00? Curious. But I must assume that there is a good reason for it.
    In any case, the graph is a good reason for us all to be sceptical about the claims of the climate zealots.
    There is an interesting thought. The climate zealots want us to go along with their agenda – they want us to think about ‘warming’ and ‘change’. Why cannot we describe these people as ‘persons who are obsessed by the climate’ in the same way that we describe football fans as ‘fanatics’? Each individual football team might have its ‘fans’, but, as a group, they are just crazy ‘football fanatics’. I like that.

  89. Anonymous says:

    Frank, do you have an URL for that graph? I would be grateful.
    The only odd thing is the stretching out in the last couple of millenniae. Also, I wonder why the blue lines appear at about -31.60. Why is the blue section not around -31.00? Curious. But I must assume that there is a good reason for it.
    In any case, the graph is a good reason for us all to be sceptical about the claims of the climate zealots.
    There is an interesting thought. The climate zealots want us to go along with their agenda – they want us to think about ‘warming’ and ‘change’. Why cannot we describe these people as ‘persons who are obsessed by the climate’ in the same way that we describe football fans as ‘fanatics’? Each individual football team might have its ‘fans’, but, as a group, they are just crazy ‘football fanatics’. I like that.

  90. Anonymous says:

    Frank, do you have an URL for that graph? I would be grateful.
    The only odd thing is the stretching out in the last couple of millenniae. Also, I wonder why the blue lines appear at about -31.60. Why is the blue section not around -31.00? Curious. But I must assume that there is a good reason for it.
    In any case, the graph is a good reason for us all to be sceptical about the claims of the climate zealots.
    There is an interesting thought. The climate zealots want us to go along with their agenda – they want us to think about ‘warming’ and ‘change’. Why cannot we describe these people as ‘persons who are obsessed by the climate’ in the same way that we describe football fans as ‘fanatics’? Each individual football team might have its ‘fans’, but, as a group, they are just crazy ‘football fanatics’. I like that.

  91. Anonymous says:

    Junican – I don’t give any sign at all that I’m pro-BNP I out-and-out proclaim it. We say it loud and clear on the heading to our blog.
    And it IS “we”: there are four of us authors, and we all have different points of view
    Morgan.

  92. Anonymous says:

    Junican – I don’t give any sign at all that I’m pro-BNP I out-and-out proclaim it. We say it loud and clear on the heading to our blog.
    And it IS “we”: there are four of us authors, and we all have different points of view
    Morgan.

  93. Anonymous says:

    Junican – I don’t give any sign at all that I’m pro-BNP I out-and-out proclaim it. We say it loud and clear on the heading to our blog.
    And it IS “we”: there are four of us authors, and we all have different points of view
    Morgan.

  94. Anonymous says:

    It’s a pity that more people did not join up with freedom2choose a couple of years ago.
    They told the drinkers and anybody not resembling a ‘stick insect’ that ‘they would be the next targets.
    It’s the meat eaters today and God knows who tomorrow.
    People must get together to fight this ‘nannying’ for their own sanity.

  95. Anonymous says:

    It’s a pity that more people did not join up with freedom2choose a couple of years ago.
    They told the drinkers and anybody not resembling a ‘stick insect’ that ‘they would be the next targets.
    It’s the meat eaters today and God knows who tomorrow.
    People must get together to fight this ‘nannying’ for their own sanity.

  96. Anonymous says:

    It’s a pity that more people did not join up with freedom2choose a couple of years ago.
    They told the drinkers and anybody not resembling a ‘stick insect’ that ‘they would be the next targets.
    It’s the meat eaters today and God knows who tomorrow.
    People must get together to fight this ‘nannying’ for their own sanity.

  97. Anonymous says:

    Funny you should say that, Frank (and what good thinking!), but I have always said that I do my best thinking when I am in the pub having a pint and a fag. In fact, as I sit here, I am indulging in that very thing – except that it is a glass of wine and a fag. What better combination – alcohol to free you from your deep seated inhibitions and tobacco to free your intellect!
    But I am not sure about the conspiracy – I do not think that non-smoking teetotallers are clever enough.

  98. Anonymous says:

    Funny you should say that, Frank (and what good thinking!), but I have always said that I do my best thinking when I am in the pub having a pint and a fag. In fact, as I sit here, I am indulging in that very thing – except that it is a glass of wine and a fag. What better combination – alcohol to free you from your deep seated inhibitions and tobacco to free your intellect!
    But I am not sure about the conspiracy – I do not think that non-smoking teetotallers are clever enough.

  99. Anonymous says:

    Funny you should say that, Frank (and what good thinking!), but I have always said that I do my best thinking when I am in the pub having a pint and a fag. In fact, as I sit here, I am indulging in that very thing – except that it is a glass of wine and a fag. What better combination – alcohol to free you from your deep seated inhibitions and tobacco to free your intellect!
    But I am not sure about the conspiracy – I do not think that non-smoking teetotallers are clever enough.

  100. Anonymous says:

    To quote Anon. on a previous thread.
    “Honestly. I’m thoroughly convinced now that these claims are not an exaggeration of the real truth, or not-quite-the-whole-story, or even a fabricated-out-of-thin-air story – they’re a plain, downright, total, complete and utter lies, designed to “get in first.” It’s one of their main modus-operandi (or whatever the plural of that term is), in fact. They do some research, find out what’s good about smoking and then present the complete opposite, so that no-one thinks to research the matter again, and thus the real truth never becomes known and their version of the truth becomes the established “scientific consensus.”
    I’ve been waiting for this “study” to appear for a while.
    Remember this one?
    Quitters finish first
    Health warning: giving up smoking can kill
    “The danger of cigarettes is mostly not in smoking them, argues a study by three doctors at the KS Hegde Medical Academy in Mangalore, India. Or, put another way: the danger comes from not smoking. Figuratively blowing smoke in the face of conventional wisdom, the study asks: “Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?”
    Arunachalam Kumar, Kasaragod Mallya and Jairaj Kumar take little for granted. They begin: “The clinically high correlation between smoking and carcinoma of the lungs has been the focal point in societal campaigns against the habit and the tobacco lobby.” But their experience with patients suggests to them a different, seldom-told story. “We are struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking habit in many, if not most, cases.”
    Experience is their guide, numerically speaking. Of the 312 lung cancer patients they treated during a four-year period, 182 had recently quit smoking. The report goes into detail. “Each had been addicted to the habit no less than 25 years, smoking in excess of 20 sticks a day. The striking direct statistical correlation between cessation of smoking to the development of lung malignancies, more than 60% plus, is too glaring to be dismissed as coincidental.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/oct/16/highereducation.research1
    And here it is, less than 4 years later.
    Today’s news
    Ceasing to Smoke Tied to Lung Cancer Onset
    “In people who have been longtime smokers, quitting the habit at a moment’s notice, and without too much trouble may in fact be a bad sign. Experts have tied this type of spontaneous behavior to the onset and detection of lung cancer in these patients.
    In fact, some oncology specialists even propose that this can be interpreted as a sign that lung cancer is about to appear. The lack of effort in ceasing a habit that has been going on for decades can be construed as an indicator that something is wrong, and even as a symptom.
    Some scientists even believe that one of the earliest signs that the disease is oncoming is the lack of appetite for cigarettes and tobacco. The fact that many lung cancer patients stop smoking just before they are diagnosed is notorious in the medical community.”
    “There is a danger that this study could be misinterpreted as suggesting that heavy smokers should continue smoking.
    We emphasize that all smokers must be strongly encouraged to stop,” she says.
    The study revealed that heavy smokers who quit without effort were diagnosed with lung cancer within 2.7 years after ceasing to smoke.
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ceasing-to-Smoke-Tied-to-Lung-Cancer-Onset-186884.shtml
    Rose

  101. Anonymous says:

    To quote Anon. on a previous thread.
    “Honestly. I’m thoroughly convinced now that these claims are not an exaggeration of the real truth, or not-quite-the-whole-story, or even a fabricated-out-of-thin-air story – they’re a plain, downright, total, complete and utter lies, designed to “get in first.” It’s one of their main modus-operandi (or whatever the plural of that term is), in fact. They do some research, find out what’s good about smoking and then present the complete opposite, so that no-one thinks to research the matter again, and thus the real truth never becomes known and their version of the truth becomes the established “scientific consensus.”
    I’ve been waiting for this “study” to appear for a while.
    Remember this one?
    Quitters finish first
    Health warning: giving up smoking can kill
    “The danger of cigarettes is mostly not in smoking them, argues a study by three doctors at the KS Hegde Medical Academy in Mangalore, India. Or, put another way: the danger comes from not smoking. Figuratively blowing smoke in the face of conventional wisdom, the study asks: “Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?”
    Arunachalam Kumar, Kasaragod Mallya and Jairaj Kumar take little for granted. They begin: “The clinically high correlation between smoking and carcinoma of the lungs has been the focal point in societal campaigns against the habit and the tobacco lobby.” But their experience with patients suggests to them a different, seldom-told story. “We are struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking habit in many, if not most, cases.”
    Experience is their guide, numerically speaking. Of the 312 lung cancer patients they treated during a four-year period, 182 had recently quit smoking. The report goes into detail. “Each had been addicted to the habit no less than 25 years, smoking in excess of 20 sticks a day. The striking direct statistical correlation between cessation of smoking to the development of lung malignancies, more than 60% plus, is too glaring to be dismissed as coincidental.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/oct/16/highereducation.research1
    And here it is, less than 4 years later.
    Today’s news
    Ceasing to Smoke Tied to Lung Cancer Onset
    “In people who have been longtime smokers, quitting the habit at a moment’s notice, and without too much trouble may in fact be a bad sign. Experts have tied this type of spontaneous behavior to the onset and detection of lung cancer in these patients.
    In fact, some oncology specialists even propose that this can be interpreted as a sign that lung cancer is about to appear. The lack of effort in ceasing a habit that has been going on for decades can be construed as an indicator that something is wrong, and even as a symptom.
    Some scientists even believe that one of the earliest signs that the disease is oncoming is the lack of appetite for cigarettes and tobacco. The fact that many lung cancer patients stop smoking just before they are diagnosed is notorious in the medical community.”
    “There is a danger that this study could be misinterpreted as suggesting that heavy smokers should continue smoking.
    We emphasize that all smokers must be strongly encouraged to stop,” she says.
    The study revealed that heavy smokers who quit without effort were diagnosed with lung cancer within 2.7 years after ceasing to smoke.
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ceasing-to-Smoke-Tied-to-Lung-Cancer-Onset-186884.shtml
    Rose

  102. Anonymous says:

    To quote Anon. on a previous thread.
    “Honestly. I’m thoroughly convinced now that these claims are not an exaggeration of the real truth, or not-quite-the-whole-story, or even a fabricated-out-of-thin-air story – they’re a plain, downright, total, complete and utter lies, designed to “get in first.” It’s one of their main modus-operandi (or whatever the plural of that term is), in fact. They do some research, find out what’s good about smoking and then present the complete opposite, so that no-one thinks to research the matter again, and thus the real truth never becomes known and their version of the truth becomes the established “scientific consensus.”
    I’ve been waiting for this “study” to appear for a while.
    Remember this one?
    Quitters finish first
    Health warning: giving up smoking can kill
    “The danger of cigarettes is mostly not in smoking them, argues a study by three doctors at the KS Hegde Medical Academy in Mangalore, India. Or, put another way: the danger comes from not smoking. Figuratively blowing smoke in the face of conventional wisdom, the study asks: “Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?”
    Arunachalam Kumar, Kasaragod Mallya and Jairaj Kumar take little for granted. They begin: “The clinically high correlation between smoking and carcinoma of the lungs has been the focal point in societal campaigns against the habit and the tobacco lobby.” But their experience with patients suggests to them a different, seldom-told story. “We are struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking habit in many, if not most, cases.”
    Experience is their guide, numerically speaking. Of the 312 lung cancer patients they treated during a four-year period, 182 had recently quit smoking. The report goes into detail. “Each had been addicted to the habit no less than 25 years, smoking in excess of 20 sticks a day. The striking direct statistical correlation between cessation of smoking to the development of lung malignancies, more than 60% plus, is too glaring to be dismissed as coincidental.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/oct/16/highereducation.research1
    And here it is, less than 4 years later.
    Today’s news
    Ceasing to Smoke Tied to Lung Cancer Onset
    “In people who have been longtime smokers, quitting the habit at a moment’s notice, and without too much trouble may in fact be a bad sign. Experts have tied this type of spontaneous behavior to the onset and detection of lung cancer in these patients.
    In fact, some oncology specialists even propose that this can be interpreted as a sign that lung cancer is about to appear. The lack of effort in ceasing a habit that has been going on for decades can be construed as an indicator that something is wrong, and even as a symptom.
    Some scientists even believe that one of the earliest signs that the disease is oncoming is the lack of appetite for cigarettes and tobacco. The fact that many lung cancer patients stop smoking just before they are diagnosed is notorious in the medical community.”
    “There is a danger that this study could be misinterpreted as suggesting that heavy smokers should continue smoking.
    We emphasize that all smokers must be strongly encouraged to stop,” she says.
    The study revealed that heavy smokers who quit without effort were diagnosed with lung cancer within 2.7 years after ceasing to smoke.
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ceasing-to-Smoke-Tied-to-Lung-Cancer-Onset-186884.shtml
    Rose

  103. Anonymous says:

    jaws movie sounds
    the movie little miss sunshine http://movieszone.eu/actor/80220/Georgia-Backus.html Georgia Backus free movie torrents

  104. Anonymous says:

    jaws movie sounds
    the movie little miss sunshine http://movieszone.eu/actor/80220/Georgia-Backus.html Georgia Backus free movie torrents

  105. Anonymous says:

    jaws movie sounds
    the movie little miss sunshine http://movieszone.eu/actor/80220/Georgia-Backus.html Georgia Backus free movie torrents

  106. shpinatnik says:

    Что вы о их скажете?

  107. RichardDal says:

    Electric Cars – The Car Of The Future?

    If it is all totally done the right way, the only thing that can come when it comes to purchasing your perfect car will be the significant amount. Unless the car buyer was extremely rich to have the required cash ready, investing in a car was once upon a time an extremely difficult process. It was meant simply for the affluent and celebrities. The common man was required to struggle and save his earnings for years together to experience the luxurious of your new car. Thanks to the auto loans, currently, cars are becoming a necessity instead of an extra. However, it is vital to find out A-Z about the automobile loan to get the best offer.

    When you arrive in the dealership of your choice you can anticipate the top in certified used cars. The risk in getting a used model is removed. The only thing you need to focus on is selecting the car you wish to drive away in. You will have a much wider selection from which to choose. This will help save money and time.

    As mentioned before, both new and used car dealerships purchase used cars. However, it is much simpler to approach a used car lot since they focus on used cars. They will have a good idea of if they are curious about acquiring the car before they can consider it. The model, make and year of the car are enough so they can tell if they have an interest. So it can be much faster to travel straight away to a pre-owned car lot. Also, you can shop around at different dealerships. Some learn better than the others when it comes to business and therefore are able to better provide a reasonable price for your car, even if it is below rate. And, you’ll find nothing wrong with negotiating with one of these dealerships.

    In my opinion, an advanced lover of American muscle cars, you shouldn’t buy the pc controlled, excessively sleek cars of today, but acquire one from the more classy cars of yesterday. The fifties, and to a degree, the 1960s were where it had been at as much as American automobiles was concerned. That was the age from the very strong steel frames which could hold together like nobody’s business, of the large, stout solid American cars that did withstand around a long time of misuse. That was quite a while ahead of the travesty of uni-body construction kicked in, when men were men, and American automobiles were cars. Maybe days past are past, but the cars from days past – at least many – continue to be on the highway now, as well as some of which can be obtained by any fairly happier collector. There is nothing superior to the roar of your old, dolled up v-8 engine under the bonnet of the older American automobiles, and that’s no lie.

    The cost of these toys isn’t prohibitive. The most basic models can be picked up for under 200 bucks. You will need to consider how sturdy they should be. Some children are seen to play roughly using their toys. Typically, some pedal cars will be made from a powerful plastic and these have the house of being lightweight. Just remember the metal cars will last considerably longer compared to the plastic ones.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.