A Tobacco Control Timeline

I was going to post the following last night, but got distracted.

I’ve drawn a map of the advance of Tobacco Control ‘army’ over the past 60 years or so.

arrows3

The campaign starts in 1950 with the publication of Doll and Hill’s London Hospitals study and Wynder and Graham’s US study, and another US one whose name I forget, all linking smoking cigarettes with lung cancer (1). Doll and Hill follow up by starting the British Doctors study, which was to keep publishing results for the next 50 years.

The next phase in the campaign sees the launch of the secondhand smoke threat (2) by Sir George Godber et al. in about 1975, and this steadily gathers momentum over the next 25 years.

I’m not sure when thirdhand smoke (3) was invented, but I’ve placed it at about 2000. And by fourthhand smoke (4) I’m thinking of nicotine vapour.

It’s the view of MJM and others that the ‘threat’ posed by the various-hand smokes diminishes with each stage (which is reflected in the width of the advancing column), and so it’s easier to persuade people that secondhand smoke isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as firsthand smoke, and so that’s where the counter-attack should be made.

However, there’s another way of thinking about this advance of Tobacco Control. And it’s that when it started off in Nazi Germany (which most people either don’t know or forget about), it was almost killed off in 1945. What Doll and Hill and the others essentially did was to revive the Nazi ‘science’ by adopting the same methodology, with added statistical analysis. But if back in 1950 Tobacco Control wasn’t very strong, then it’s been getting stronger and stronger ever since.

So a revised map would look something like this:

arrows4

And what’s different about this is that Tobacco Control, as it got stronger and more organised and better funded and more influential, was able to advance its cause with weaker and weaker arguments. It could do this because it had gained a total stranglehold on the ‘science’, and on the ‘experts’ in the media who disseminate the ‘science’, and on the medical profession, and also on governments. It’s so strong that it’s even spawning related ‘science’ in fields of alcohol and nutrition. It’s become a monster.

For example, right now Tobacco Control is working very hard indeed to ‘prove’ that novel e-cigarettes are as dangerous as any tobacco product. And they’re actually being pretty successful. E-cigarettes are getting banned left, right, and centre.

Seen this way, Tobacco Control is at its strongest with its spearhead attack on nicotine vapour – because that’s where most of its very considerable efforts are currently being directed. Where it is at its weakest lies deep in its rear, where it regards the battle as won, and where “the debate is over”. And where most of the players are dead. And where no attack is expected. And where the whole campaign can be cut off at its root.

And so, in my view, the current TC spearhead should simply be side-stepped, and an attack mounted far to the rear, against the myth of firsthand smoke (highlighting its Nazi origins). The vapers should be left to defend themselves. And anyway I’m inclined to believe that stamping out vaping will prove to be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory, because it’s making a lot of people realise not only that the justifications for all these bans are based on ‘research’ that’s been quickly ordered up to reach a pre-determined conclusion, but also what utter bastards TC are. For example, an antismoking friend (about the last one I’ve got) phoned a few weeks back to tell me about these new e-cigs. “They’re banning those too,” I told her. “What!!!?” she shrieked.

Back in 1950, with no internet around, the debate about the Doll and Hill London Hospitals study raged for a while in the newspapers and in the medical profession and a few other interested parties. And from what little I’ve gleaned of it, the study was fairly rapidly discredited. But a number of doctors were seemingly convinced by it, including not only Richard Doll and Bradford Hill themselves, but also George Godber, future architect of secondhand smoke. And these doctors seem to have simply gone on indefinitely repeating its findings thereafter, and started other studies, probably because they had the funding to do so.

The London Hospitals study is, in my view, an appallingly bad piece of research, if only because 98% of the patients in it were smokers, and so – regardless of whatever disease they’d been looking at – they would have likely found that 98% the people suffering from it were smokers. And this is more or less exactly what they did find with lung cancer.

Yesterday, someone wrote that the “flagship” Doll and Hill study was the subsequent British Doctors study, which was only wound up in 2004, with Sir Richard Doll saying that it had been designed to “advertise” the association of smoking and lung cancer (I don’t have the exact quote). And that’s exactly what it did, by keeping smoking in the public eye for another 50 years. But if it was “advertising” anything, it was the findings of the earlier London Hospitals study, which I regard as the true “flagship study” – and the one that most needs to be sunk.

I think that, with the resources available on the internet, it should be possible to revisit this flagship study. And I believe that if just this one study can be thoroughly and completely dismantled, then it will call into question all the subsequent studies. And if anyone raises an eyebrow about TC’s manifestly rigged anti-vaping ‘research’, we’ll be able to say, “That’s how they’ve always done it.”

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to A Tobacco Control Timeline

  1. Some other Tom says:

    Frank, have you read ‘Slow Burn’ by Don Oakley? (http://www.amazon.com/Slow-Burn-Great-American-Antismoking/dp/0961946539). It’s a great book and it starts with the 1964 Surgeon General Report (by Luther Terry). Don Oakley starts by simply trying to find a copy of it, which proved to be quite difficult, even though everyone in TC, and every following SG report has been built off of it it. Seemingly, actual copies aren’t easy to find or peruse. I am guessing that a similar circumstance may exist with the Doll report.

    • Frank Davis says:

      No, the London Hospitals study is available online as a pdf file.

      What probably isn’t available is the raw data (which Sir Ronald Fisher had a hard time getting hold of in the 1950s) .

      • Some other Tom says:

        Excellent! I will download a copy

      • mikef317 says:

        I know that the American Cancer Society has historically refused to supply its raw data to “non-friendly” authors. I think the same is true for Doll (with Fisher being the only exception I know of, probably because of his reputation, or maybe because of Bradford Hill rather than Doll).

        If you had the raw data and a decent knowledge of statistics you could do your own analysis. Tobacco Control wouldn’t like that.

    • mikef317 says:

      At the time Oakely wrote (pre-internet) what he said about availability of the Surgeon General’s report was probably true. Today you can download all of them at –

      http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/index.html

      Legacy Tobacco Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/) has over 80 million pages of documents about smoking. There are tons of old scientific papers (e.g., Doll and his critics), and many are worth reading.

  2. Harleyrider1978 says:

    It begins

    Greece is cash strapped like nearly all of the EU……….selling smoking space liscences.

    Steal your rights then sell them back to you,hows that for justice,but at least its a move towards actual repeal.

    Greece Allows Smoking Areas in Bars, Clubs, Casinos, Lotto | GreekReporter.com

    A provision in the wide-ranging bill tabled by the Greek Ministry for Development will legalize smoking areas in casinos, night clubs and live music venues larger than 300m², as well as betting shops, including lottery outlets.

    The only restrictions imposed are that these smoking areas must not exceed half a store’s floorspace and, moreover, owners of such stores should pay an annual fee of 200 euros per square metre.

    Greece has more smokers per capita than any other country in the EU, with recent surveys indicating more than 40% of Greeks aged 15 and over smoke, considerably above the EU average of 29%, and although smoking in indoor public spaces has been banned since 2010, the law has been widely flouted, a situation only heightened by inefficiency in punishing the offenders.

    Smoking in public places is so commonplace in Greece, especially in her bars and clubs, that even cash-strapped authorities have been notably tolerant, rarely levying fines that for individuals reach 500 euros, while proprietors risk penalties up to 10,000 euros and even suspension of their operating licence.

    http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/03/28/greece-allows-smoking-areas-in-bars-clubs-casinos-lotto/

  3. SomeFrenchBloke says:

    Regarding yesterday’s High Noon simile: one major difference with our fight is that Frank Miller was feared (or loathed) by everyone but Kane/Gary Cooper, whereas with its public health halo, TC scum are only second in popularity to Santa himself!

  4. Harleyrider1978 says:

    One thing is for sure Frank just blogging about the first hand claims is going to cause a stir all over the place and its going to open the debate up all over the world as these things go……….Challenging their foundations is going to set a fuse to the biggest explosion ever seen and likely end with Junk Science being wiped out and a return to factual science and Provable facts instead of statistical manipulations.

    They will be watching you now and the rest of us for sure…………

  5. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Cousin Junican is a fast study……….

    Starting a New Blog for the McTear Case

    http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/starting-a-new-blog-for-the-mctear-case/

  6. Junican says:

    I’ll refer you to my analysis of the Hospital Study, Frank, but in all honesty, I must admit that I find it difficult to understand! I think that you have to read it in conjunction with the actual study.

    http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/an-analysis-the-doll-and-hill-study-smoking-and-carcenoma-of-the-lung-1950-the-hospital-study/

    You are right, of course, that almost all males especially were smokers in 1950. The Doll ‘trick’ in that study was to identify 709 smokers with lung cancer, and then search and find throughout the London hospital 709 non-smokers of similar age and background with which to compare. Essentially, no matter how it is dressed up, what he ‘discovered’ was that those patients with lung cancer smoked more than those without.

    It was a mess really, but, in my opinion, the Doctors Study was already primed and funded. The Hospital Study was just a justification for the Doctors Study.

    • Frank Davis says:

      The Doll ‘trick’ in that study was to identify 709 smokers with lung cancer, and then search and find throughout the London hospital 709 non-smokers of similar age and background with which to compare.

      No, no! The study group of 649 lung cancer patients were almost all smokers. And so was the control group of 649 non-lung cancer patients. In the entire study of nearly 1300 patients, only 29 didn’t smoke. See Table IV here.

      • Junican says:

        My mistake, Frank. Which just goes to show how easy it is to mis-read these things!

        649 LC patients: ONLY 2 non-smokers (647 smokers).
        649 NON LC patients: 27 non-smokers (622 smokers).

        Therefore, WOW!, there were THIRTEEN TIMES more non-smokers who DID NOT have LC than there were non-smokers who DID have LC.

        That proves that smoking causes LC.

        Right.

        I hope that I have it right this time!

        • Frank Davis says:

          Therefore, WOW!, there were THIRTEEN TIMES more non-smokers who DID NOT have LC than there were non-smokers who DID have LC.

          That proves that smoking causes LC.

          Right.

          And yet that was precisely Chris Snowdon’s argument during the CATCH debate 3 years back.

        • Harleyrider1978 says:

          I have a question after looking at the ages and knowing the time frame,what were the occupations of these men. Had they been in combat in ww2,coal miners,or at Bikini Atol during the nuclear blast testing……….Theres more questions than answers and Im sure the answers will bring even more questions………What were there exposures to chest xrays when nobody knew about dosage to xrays………….Since we see quite a few of the LC patients were in the 30-55 yo bracket in figure 2 I believe it is, Today we see nearly all the LC cases in the 75-85 Yo old bracket. Then we see Greece and Japan have even lower rates of LC compared to us. Somethings not jiving here…..

        • Junican says:

          I think that it was these sort of conclusions which had Fisher foaming at the mouth.

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Was Doll watching the LC cases for a few years to strike when there was a high number of cases all of a sudden at once. What were the LC cases in the hospital system over say a 30 year period graphed out…………did fly high then low then high then low how does that graph out……..It would be intriguing

      • Junican says:

        Cousin. There was a lot of argument about precisely that. Before the turn of the century (1900), there was little recorded lung cancer as such. But, not all doctors were familiar with the symptoms, and might easily have confused them with tuberculosis, which was common at the time. It is a moot point whether the diagnosis of lung cancer became easier, and that this easiness just happened to coincide with the increase in smoking. But there are lots of other complications. Did lots of people die from old age and diseases before they were old enough for cancer to affect them?
        I wonder if other cancers were also affected in the same way? I don’t suppose anyone will ever investigate since only tobacco control can decide what gets funded.

  7. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Members of the ‘Independent’ EPA Advisory Committee Got $180 Million from EPA

    How “independent” can an advisory committee be if 15 of its 20 members received an aggregate $180 million from the agency it is advising? That’s the question Ron Arnold raises in his recent Washington Examiner piece, which looks at the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s Ozone Review Panel. It would raise an army of investigators and special prosecutors if a defense attorney paid millions to members of a jury. However, when the EPA pays millions to panel members charged with reviewing EPA regulations, it doesn’t even raise an eyebrow.

    In a farewell address that is well worth revisiting, President Dwight Eisenhower not only warned of “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” he also warned of a similarly worrisome joining of scientific research and government funding. He presciently described the problem this way:

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2014/03/26/members-independent-epa-advisory-committee-got-180-million-epa/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

  8. waltc says:

    We’re all heading for the same place and there’s nothing wrong with trying to get there by different roads or trying to attack the problem from different directions (and that, btw, includes arguments about civil liberties–which the Aunts themselves use with their “right to smoke-free air” blather). But I again think it’s a mischaracterization to say that my preferred road, which is somewhere to the right of MJM’s, or even his road, is that “it’s easier to persuade people that secondhand smoke isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as firsthand smoke” since that implies the trip starts with a premise that firsthand smoke is, in and of itself, an extreme hazard that causes every ailment known to man. Not in my car, it doesn’t.

    I can point out that it’s not even that “easy” to persuade people in general— and, so far, no court and very few if any hellbent legislatures– that secondhand smoke isn’t dangerous, even with a zillion studies behind the argument, but, yes, because there’s so much hard documentation it’s easi-ER and at least with some parts of the public the argument penetrates and will penetrate more as TC explores the wilder edges of credulity. From there you can, as jax suggests, move backwards from the point where credulity snaps: If fourthhand smoke is bullshit, then thirdhand smoke is bullshit, then secondhand smoke…and so on. But I also continue to believe that Audrey’s road, at least for now, is proving to be the one that gets to Scotland first.

    No matter. Any ammo will do in a guerrilla war. From Molotov cocktails to tomatoes to old shoes. Take your own best shot.

  9. carol2000 says:

    Thirdhand smoke doesn’t show up in PubMed until 2009.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22thirdhand+smoke%22

  10. carol2000 says:

    “And what’s different about this is that Tobacco Control, as it got stronger and more organised and better funded and more influential, was able to advance its cause with weaker and weaker arguments. It could do this because it had gained a total stranglehold on the ‘science’, and on the ‘experts’ in the media who disseminate the ‘science’, and on the medical profession, and also on governments. It’s so strong that it’s even spawning related ‘science’ in fields of alcohol and nutrition. It’s become a monster.”

    In the US, the National Cancer Institute was created in 1937. Original members of the National Advisory Cancer Council of the National Cancer Institute, appointed by Surgeon General Thomas Parran in 1937: James Ewing, Director of Memorial Hospital; Dr. Francis C. Wood, Director of the Crocker Institute of Cancer Research at Columbia University; Harvard University President James B. Conant; Dr. Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago; C.C. Little, Managing Director of the American Society for the Control of Cancer; and Dr. Ludvig Hektoen of Chicago. In 1938, Dr. James B. Murphy of the Rockefeller Institute and Dr. Mont R. Reid replaced Ewing and Wood. (Named to Cancer Council. New York Times, Dec. 11, 1938, p. 30.) Ewing, Hektoen, Little, Murphy, Parran, and Wood were all affiliated with the ASCC, which later became the American Cancer Society. So, they’ve been in the driver’s seat from the very beginning.

  11. wobbler2012 says:

    You forgot fifth hand smoke Frank, that is if you know someone who has come into contact with a room where it has been proven that someone has had a smoke in there at any stage in the last fifty years.

  12. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Guide To Translating Scientific Papers Into Plain English

    Statement
    Really means

    It has long been known… I haven’t bothered to look up the reference.

    It is thought that… I think so.

    It is generally thought that… A couple of other people think so, too.

    It is not unreasonable to assume… If you believe this, you’ll believe anything.

    Of great theoretical importance…
    I find it interesting.

    Of great practical importance…
    I can get some good mileage out of it.

    Typical results are shown. The best results are shown.

    Three samples were chosen for further study. The others didn’t make sense, so we ignored them.

    The second sample was not used. I dropped it on the floor.

    Results obtained with the second sample must be interpreted with caution. I dropped it on the floor but managed to scoop most of it up.

    Correct within an order of magnitude.
    Incorrect.

    Much additional work will be required.
    This paper isn’t very good, but neither is anyone else’s.

    These investigations yielded highly rewarding results.
    My grant will be renewed.

    This research was supported by a grant from… I wonder if the taxpayers know they’re paying for this?

    A line of best fit was drawn using least-squares regression.
    I drew it by hand.

    A non-linear relationship was found.
    I drew it by hand and I didn’t use a ruler.

    Stringent controls were implemented.
    My advisor was watching.

    I thank X for assistance with the experiments and Y for useful discussions on the interpretation of the data.
    X did the experiment and Y explained it to me.

    http://www.science20.com/genomicron/guide_translating_scientific_papers_plain_english-28033

  13. Harleyrider1978 says:

    David Atherton

    Has Putin Ended the Green Movement in Europe? My latest article. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/30/has-putin-ended-the-green-movement

  14. Rose says:

    Before the nazis, a few words from the original founder of the Anti-tobacco campaign. James 1st of England 6th of Scotland, to show where these ideas came from.

    Counterblaste

    Bear in mind that this is all his own invention, because tobacco at the time was considered a wonderful new medicine that cured all manner of things.

    Cancer

    “this use of Tobacco, as a stinking and unsavorie Antidot, for so corrupted and execrable a Maladie, the stinking Suffumigation whereof they yet use against that disease, making so one canker or venime to eate out another.”

    Black lung myth

    “Surely Smoke becomes a kitchin far better then a Dining chamber, and yet it makes a kitchin also oftentimes in the inward parts of men, soiling and infecting them, with an unctuous and oily kinde of Soote, as hath bene found in some great Tobacco takers, that after their death were opened.”

    Sin

    Thus having, as I truste, sufficiently answered the most principall arguments that are used in defence of this vile custome, it rests onely to informe you what sinnes and vanities you commit in the filthie abuse thereof. First, are you not guiltie of sinnefull and shamefull lust? ………………………….Secondly it is, as you use or rather abuse it, a branche of the sinne of drunkennesse, which is the roote of all sinnes:
    http://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/james/blaste/blaste.html

    Murray Jarvik co-inventor of the nicotine patch musing on Puritan heritage.

    “I have decided to sent you my latest thoughts on possible virtues of cigarette smoking in the form of a letter because I feel this form is less formal than a separate presentation and I feel less inhibited”

    “It is interesting that the use of these agents has been severely condemned by groups and individuals. Prohibitionists actually succeeded in outlawing the sale and production of alcoholic beverages for a while. It is difficult to know whether the movement was motivated by a concern for health or for moral righteousness.
    Much of the fervour for restricting pleasurable activities can be traced to antiquity and has been interpreted as a form of sado-masochism by psychiatrists.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/4598.html

    • Rose says:

      We don’t know how smoking does it, but it must. More research is needed.

      Zeitschrift für Krebsforschung, Berlin – 1939

      Abuse of Tobacco and Carcinoma of Lungs – Muller

      “The fact that about one third of the subjects surveyed smoked moderately or not at all indicates the presence of other cancerigenic factors besides smoking, such as influenza and industrial working conditions.
      The great significance of the latter can be inferred from various indications but needs further study.”
      http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/4164.html

      1943

      Lung cancer and tobacco consumption

      E Schairer and
      E Schöniger

      Summary

      “Following the studies of Müller (Cologne) an investigation into the consumption of tobacco was conducted among cancer cases of the Pathological Institute in Jena, and among a comparison group from the normal male population of the same age in Jena.

      We could confirm the report of Müller that non-smokers rarely get lung cancer whereas heavy smokers get it more frequently than the average. Conversely, we found few heavy smokers and many non-smokers and light smokers among patients with stomach cancer.

      Our comparison material was less than satisfactory and the association between heavy tobacco consumption and lung cancer is therefore statistically, and causally, only likely. In order to confirm this association, larger investigations are required which we hope to stimulate with the present investigation.”

      “Article first published in German in Z Krebsforsch 1943”

      http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/24.full

      Proctor

      “Commentary: Schairer and Schöniger’s forgotten tobacco epidemiology and the Nazi quest for racial purity

      “Schairer and Schöniger’s paper was largely based on Schöniger’s medical dissertation, submitted in 1944. Schöniger’s, though, was only one of several dissertations produced at Astel’s institute.

      Gabriele Schulze and Käte Dischner in their jointly written Die Zigarettenraucherin (‘The Female Cigarette Smoker’, Jena, 1942), for example, interviewed 165 women as part of a study of the physical and psychological effects of nicotine withdrawal.

      Most of the women studied were incarcerated at prisons in Weimar, Gera or Kleinmuesdorf near Leipzig, where smoking was forbidden; the dissertation records the women’s cries for cigarettes, and attempts to classify female smokers by menstrual patterns, ‘constitutional type’ (asthenic, pyknic, leptosome, etc.), and criminal behaviour.

      The authors claimed that smoking made one vulnerable to tuberculosis and called for a total smoking ban for women, consistent with the Nazi slogan ‘Die deutsche Frau raucht nicht!’ (The German woman does not smoke!).
      http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/31.full

  15. Harleyrider1978 says:

    White House looks to regulate cow flatulence as part of climate agenda
    dailycaller.com
    As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions…

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Owebama is targeting everything as the Greens attack every business in America the shakedown goes on. Likely their after campaign donations using the federal regulatory agencies to go out and flex their muscle to get democrats donations/Bribes to leave them alone!

    • Rose says:

      Been there, done that, Harley.

      Whitehall turf war saves cows’ hides – 2009

      “It all began when officials at the Department of Health decided to part-fund a piece of independent research looking at how health professionals could help combat the effects of climate change.
      The scientists came up with a rather courageous idea. Why not kill 30% of Britain’s cows and sheep?
      Not only would this help save the environment; it would also make us healthier.

      The theory goes like this: if you have less ruminant livestock, you emit less climate-damaging methane into the atmosphere.”
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8379759.stm

      You were a bit behind with that one.

      Kyoto: Why did the US pull out? – 2001

      “President Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto agreement on global warming shows ..”
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1248757.stm

  16. smokervoter says:

    Yo Nisakiman re: Kefalonia:

    I see that the earthquake that devastated Kefalonia in 1953 was a 7.3 richter scale doosie.

    I lived through the the Landers quake in 1992, a moment in time that will live in infamy for me forever. I was only 60 miles away as the crow flies. It was 7.3 richter.

    Remember how Crocodile Dundee said “No mate, this is a knife”. Well, mate the Landers Quake was an earthquake.

    You and I are definitely kindred spirits by way of occupations, smoking and fun, fun, fun during the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc, etc. We also live in similar necks of the woods latitudinally speaking.

    I noticed that your north latitude coordinate in Greece is roughly 39.44. I’m at 34.3, so I’m a bit further south and maybe a tad warmer, but in the same general ballpark so to speak.

    1992 Landers Earthquake 7.3 Richter

    Notice that the northern coordinate for the Landers epicenter as 34.14N. Well mate, 34.3 ain’t too far away crow or no crow.

    • nisakiman says:

      You and I are definitely kindred spirits by way of occupations, smoking and fun, fun, fun during the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc, etc. We also live in similar necks of the woods latitudinally speaking.

      Hail, fellow! Well met! :¬)

      Actually, SV, I could manage ‘a tad warmer’. It gets quite cold here in the winter. I’m currently looking to move to 15.2281° N, 104.8594° E, which rarely gets cold. These old bones need a bit of warmth. Plus it’s really a nice place to live. Great food, low cost of living, friendly locals and a fiendishly difficult language! (Sheesh! And I thought Greek was difficult! Still, keeps the brain active!)

      And as far as I know, no earthquakes! :)

  17. smokervoter says:

    Nisakiman, just a little carpenter-to-carpenter gab regarding that quake if I might.

    You know how you sometimes have to wrack a stubborn wooden stud wall violently to get it to stand plumb before temporarily bracing it in place? (They do wall frame with wood over there occasionally? Maybe not.)

    There’s a certain sound of the nails bending within the wood when you do this that only a carpenter is keenly tuned into.

    As that quake was underway (apparently for over two minutes!, I thought it was long, but WOW!) I was hearing that familiar sound coming from within the walls of my own house.

    The experts say “Stay put, drop and cover”. Well F-U Mister Expert, I ran outside and lickety-split.

    Then as I sat chillin’ out and chain-smoking on my front lawn, (Note: non-smokers had to tough it out with all of their vaunted self-control, pity them.) a second quake hit (6.5 richter). I watched all the telephone poles swaying like tall palm trees in the wind. It was all very surreal.

    I must have smoked a sleeves worth that day. Thank God for tobacco and small favors.

    • nisakiman says:

      Heh! Yes, I’ve put up many a studwork frame, and I know the sound you mean. Many years ago I got involved in building recording studios, and the spec was for all studwork to be glued and screwed. I found screwing the framework together to be so much less stressful (both for the timber and me), that I’ve never used nails since. And of course, with the advent of electric screwdrivers, it’s just as quick, too. That said, my Estwing hammers are still a central part of my toolkit, and see daily use in one role or another.

      • smokervoter says:

        My father swung an Estwing! I’ve got one (smooth face) for finish nailing and pulling out errant nails. You simply can’t break the steel handle on an Estwing.

        I use a Hart Tool 25 oz Framing Hammer (wooden handle) that I purchased in 1985. They call it a framers axe round here. I still drive em’ in by hand. Gotta’ have some way to vent the pent up hostilities that the Nannies cause me on a daily basis.

        Hart Tool Model HH25FCS – Aussie Web Page – Who knew!

        Sorry everybody for all the ‘shop talk’.

  18. beobrigitte says:

    Btw, Happy Birthday, Gary!!!!

  19. You gotta love the fact that lawmakers are making medical marijuana a legal status within the next five years. Medical marijuana will be legal in most states in the united states and it’ll also take the Federal crime away soon.

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.