Not Quitting Smoking

H/T Tony for this from F2C Scotland: Quit Costs Vs Quit RatesThe more they spend, the fewer people quit smoking.

And it’s been a long time since I featured Lana Del Rey, so H/T Harley for her new album cover(s). She’s not been quitting smoking either, it seems.

ultraviolence1 ultraviolence3

And here’s a YouTube video of the tracks off it. And no, she hasn’t quit smoking on that either.

About Frank Davis

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

20 Responses to Not Quitting Smoking

  1. magnetic01 says:

    Interesting comments (towards the bottom) to Chapman’s article. Commenting is usually open for many days. Commenting to this article was abruptly closed after 1 day.
    https://theconversation.com/electronic-cigarettes-hope-from-the-hype-may-harm-your-health-27444#comments

    • carol2000 says:

      I couldn’t even find that article on that section’s headline page.

        • Harleyrider1978 says:

          Heres 2 comments I picked up from an Alaskan story about 2 months ago and good shit it is:

          Rosetta Graham Wilson · Tech at Providence Medical Center Anchorage

          For all uneducated people out there JESSICA LUNTZ
          HEALTH, LEGISLATION, POLITICS, STUDIES, VAPING

          EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children

          APRIL 3, 2014 , 47 matt black

          In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”

          First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.

          I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          Catchy title. I was intrigued.

          This quote caught my eye:

          Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).

          In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.

          Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)

          Continued…

          Method and Rates of Application

          ….

          Air Sanitizer

          Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10’x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)

          A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.

          General Toxicity Observations

          Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

          Carcinogenicity Classification

          A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)

          Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…

          2. FQPA Safety Factor

          The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.

          In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:

          The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.

          An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.

          I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.

        • Harleyrider1978 says:

          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
          OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
          CERTIFIED MAIL
          Dear Registrant:
          This is to inform you that the Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) has completed its review of the available data for the antimicrobials propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. The Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) was approved in the form of a decision memorandum which summarized the regulatory decision for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol on September 30, 2004. Based on its review, EPA is now publishing its Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol and its associated human health and environmental risks. A Notice of Availability will be published in the Federal Register announcing the publication of the RED.
          The RED and supporting documents for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol will be available to the public in EPA’s Pesticide Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0831 at: http://www.regulations.gov.
          Please note that the attached RED document pertains only to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This RED presents the Agency’s conclusions on the dietary, drinking water, occupational and ecological risks posed by exposure to propylene glycol or dipropylene glycol alone. This document also contains product-specific data that the Agency intends to require in Data Call-Ins (DCIs). Note that DCIs, with all pertinent instructions, will be sent to registrants at a later date. Currently, there are no generic data requirements. Additionally, for product- specific DCIs, the first set of required responses will be due 90 days from the receipt of the DCI letter. The second set of required responses will be due eight months from the receipt of the DCI letter.
          As part of the RED, the Agency has determined that propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol are eligible for reregistration. Sections IV and V of this RED document describe product- specific data requirements.

          http://mnvapers.com/2014/04/epa-fda-vapor-harmless-children/

          The link to the actual paper is a PDF link in that story.

    • Heh, I had an experience like that with a Chapman article about a year ago. I left a highly critical point-by-point analysis of it just a day or so into commenting, then went back an hour or so later to add something — only to find commenting closed. BUT…. three hours later it was evidently re-opened briefly JUST so Chapman could pop in and have a “final word” before it was closed again. (While I can’t find the reference at the moment, I believe I saw Chapman address this someplace, indicating that the board-moderator had called him about the posting and coordinated the comment closing.)

      The article in question was also featured on a separate board where it was kept alive and open.

      In general Australian boards and news-threads seem to be far more under the control of antismoking operators than I’ve seen elsewhere. While there have been exceptions, I’ve noticed far too many cases where my “moderated” comments never made it past the moderators or were sent into “shadow banning” mode (i.e. *I* could see my comments when signed in through my usual ISP, but if I signed in under a different ISP, e.g. through AOL, my comment would be invisible. That’s a tactic that has been used on TOPIX news boards as well: I had hundreds of my comments there wiped out in that fashion at one stroke several years ago and now just use TOPIX as a jumping board to original sources.)

      – MJM

    • beobrigitte says:

      Very interesting, indeed!
      Reading Chapman’s contribution had something “breaking bad”-esque. His replies reminded me of this series; the main character started off with all good intentions which all too soon served as an excuse to lie and control everyone around him. Discussions are abruptly ended.
      Success does get to peoples’ heads.
      Ironically, the most humane and ‘normal’ character in the end was his little helper – a young meth addict, kicked out of the society he grew up in.

      It is a pity that the discussion was closed after one day. But then, surely he was aware of his limitations:
      For example:
      Clearly, dual users who think they’re reducing their risk of death by smoking less are not basing their hopes on good evidence. And what we don’t know is how many smokers now using both would have quit altogether in the absence of electronic cigarettes. It’s highly likely many vapers who continue to smoke do so because they’ve convinced themselves that cutting down on cigarettes has significantly reduced their risk.
      He does not consider the dual users who have no wish to give up smoking and are NOT afraid of nature taking it’s course.
      I am actually amazed that commenters picked up his bullshit figures but failed to spot the missing dual users. The cigarette tax evaders. ME.
      My ‘best before’ date might well have been May 1987 and the ‘use by’ date depends on whether SpecSavers has something to do with it. However, my ‘expiry date’ could well be another 40 years away.

      I am NOT quitting smoking, either.

  2. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health

    Posted on January 18, 2011 by admin

    http://acsh.org/2011/01/scared-to-death/
    How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health

    This 121-page report by the American Council on Science and Health details how an irrational fear of chemicals poses a real threat to public health.

    acsh.org

  3. nisakiman says:

    The fact that Lana Del Ray is pictured so often with a ciggy on the go rather makes me think that she is making a very strong statement. Because you can bet your bottom dollar that her record company and their PR wonks would be trying to get her to ‘send the right message’ on smoking. And she is quite plainly giving them the bird. And good for her, too. We need people in the public eye to be up front about the fact that they smoke, and enjoy smoking. It’s well past time to ‘re-normalise’ this particular pleasure.

    I like her T-shirt too! ;) I was quite into mescaline, back in the day.

  4. Hehe, these bloody statistics keep letting them down.

    Clearly they aren’t spending enough and anyway, with the fall in smoking rates there’s more obesity and more allergies and much higher old age care costs and pensions, so the whole project was a complete an utter fail from the word go (even if they succeeded in reducing smoking rates further, I mean).

    And no, I’m not quitting either.

  5. smokingscot says:

    As forecast by “The Sun”. Zip in the Queens Speech about Plain Packs, but you may have to pay 5p for a poly bag in some supermarkets. But not others.

    Oh the joys of the coalition.

    http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/queens-speech-ducks-plain-packs-for-tobacco/358143.article

  6. magnetic01 says:

    Fictional Cult Hero Martin Muntor Takes on Cigarette Firms in Frank
    Freudberg’s New Audiobook Thriller ‘Find Virgil’

    In the infamous underground novel of revenge Find Virgil, health fanatic Martin
    Muntor develops lung cancer from second-hand smoke, and he’s not amused.

    Muntor, a Philadelphia journalist who spent decades taking care of his body and mind, is driven over the edge by the death sentence of Stage 4 lung cancer. He invents an intricate scheme of retaliation against cigarette manufacturers and smokers. He’ll stop at nothing for a chance to get even and make himself famous.

    http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwbooks/article/Fictional-Cult-Hero-Martin-Muntor-Takes-on-Cigarette-Firms-in-Frank-Freudbergs-New-Audiobook-Thriller-Find-Virgil-20140603#

    • beobrigitte says:

      Find Virgil is definitely a David vs. Goliath story but this time Big Tobacco won’t think it’s so funny.”

      Ah, interesting. Anti-smoking David against Big Tobacco Goliath…. There is a wonderful documentary to be found on youtube addressing this in REALITY.

      As for ‘Find Virgil’ – Martin Muntor better goes looking for him. Someone has to.

  7. I found this point by Chapman particularly interesting:

    ===
    “people primed by watching online information about health problems from wind turbines, reported more symptoms after being exposed to recorded infrasound or to sham (fake) infrasound. The study provided powerful evidence for the nocebo hypothesis: the idea that anxiety and fear about wind turbines being spread about by anti-wind farm groups, will cause some people hearing this scary stuff to get those symptoms.”
    ===

    That’s EXACTLY what many of us have claimed about reactions to secondhand smoke being driven by the fears spread by antismoking campaigners … and yet I’m fairly certain that Chapman would disagree with his thinking being so applied.

    – MJM

    • beobrigitte says:

      What is really annoying – you can’t turn the video off.

      But then, it made me laugh, so it’s all good.

      I feel for the real people left in that state…..

  8. jaxthefirst says:

    Your graph, Frank, is one of the reasons why I think Tobacco Control has largely faded (though not, sadly, completely) from the front of politicians’ minds. I think that in a way, TC have been victims of their own success. It’s the law of diminishing returns – the fewer smokers there are around, the more costly, per person, the expenditure allocated to each one becomes. And this situation is exacerbated if, year on year, expenditure on Tobacco Control is increased, rather than being gradually and systematically scaled down, as it really should be, in the light of the reduced number of people still smoking. Even our dimmer-than-a-9-watt-bulb politicians – obsessed as they are with all things money-related – can’t fail to have worked that one out. It must surely now only be a matter of time before they, like the Aussies, finally pull the plug on the whole enormous scam and bring it screaming and wailing back into the real world and face to face with the reality that only a very small number of deeply unpopular, neurotic people support them; that smokers – each and every one of them – despise them with a hatred heretofore unknown to man; and that the rest of the world, to be perfectly honest, hardly give them a moment’s thought and simply don’t much care! Aww, shame!

    • Frank Davis says:

      I suspect that it’s worse than “the law of diminishing returns.” For it seems to me that the intense campaign of exclusion and vilification of smokers by Tobacco Control is likely to have been highly counter-productive in getting smokers to even consider quitting.

      And I don’t really think they want smokers to quit smoking. For as long as there are substantial numbers of smokers, they can always say that there remains a “problem” which needs to be “tackled”, and would require substantial funding. It’s a racket. And it’s never been about health.

  9. Nancy Williams says:

    Hello everyone on this forum i am here to gladly and happily tell the world of the great and miraculous experience i and my family have seen. My husband who has been seriously ill and diagnosed of cancer just drastically recovered in just less than 3 weeks after the use of cannabis oil i got from an agent of Rick Simpson. At first i was being skeptical about it but when i read a few testimonies of how this oil works i decided to give it a trial and i ordered for one and it was delivered in less than 48 hours and he also told me how to use it,lo and behold just 2 days ago after his normal hospital check up the doctor marvelld at his great improvement from a deteriorating state. I am extremely happy my husband is healthy now and i want to thank Rick Simpson for this cure from a deadly disease. You can also get this oil for your use and your relatives simply contact him via ricksimpsoncannabiscure@gmail.com and get yours too…health is wealth

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.