Kick Them Out Of Public Life

I can’t help but think that this

Promoting products such [as] snacks, soft drinks and confectionery could soon become a thing of the past, according to leaked details from a Department of Health (DoH) meeting.

Susan Jebb, who chairs the food network of the DoH’s Public Health Responsibility Deal, warned at a meeting earlier this year that she will “go to ministers” if the industry is not quick to reduce the promotion of “products that people don’t need”.

…has got something to do with this:

(Reuters) – The euro zone economy ground to a halt in the second quarter of the year, drained of vigour by contraction in Germany and stagnancy in France.

Zero growth reported by statistics agency Eurostat on Thursday was alarm bell for politicians and policymakers in the 18-nation economy, which is already bracing for the impact tit-for-tat sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.

Germany, Europe’s largest economy contracted by 0.2 percent on the quarter, undercutting Bundesbank forecasts that it would stagnate, with foreign trade and investment notable weak spots, the German Statistics Office said on Thursday.

With so much uncertainty surrounding Russia and Ukraine, a quick rebound is unlikely.

After all, when armies of zealots are given free rein to demonise and ban “products that people don’t need” (like tobacco, alcohol, meat, sugar, salt, and anything else anyone wants rather than needs), would you not expect sales to decline, and company profits to fall, and the economy to contract. After all, what these zealots are trying to do is stop people buying stuff. 

Plain packaging, display bans, and health warnings (on tobacco or anything else) are forms of anti-marketing or anti-advertising which have the explicit aim of hindering or stopping people spending their own money on things they want. And when people have internalised all the health warnings and stopped smoking and drinking and eating anything other than brown rice and beans (or doing anything else they might actually enjoy doing), they have ceased to participate in the economy.

Environmentalists, Greens, climate alarmists, antismokers, and associated healthist killjoys may all pray for this. But as unemployment rises because nobody can sell anything to anyone any more (there’s something like 50% youth unemployment in countries like Greece and Spain), responsible governments will need to start looking for ways to boost economic activity by getting people to spend their money more freely, if they want to avoid riots and civil disorder.

And if they are to do this, they will do no better than to dispense with the services of all the environmentalists and greens and climate alarmists and antismokers and associated healthist killjoys who are currently doing their level best to throttle Western economies. Most of them are state funded anyway. None of them sell anything that anyone wants to buy. Outfits like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and ASH should not just be de-funded, but condemned as terrorist organisations (for what else do they do but terrorize everybody with nightmares and hobgoblins?). Health warnings and other restrictions should be removed from everything everywhere, and businesses allowed to freely advertise and sell their products.

This would not just slash state spending, but, as unnecessary and stifling restrictions are lifted, it would provide just the right boost to the ailing economy, as people are again allowed to buy what they want, as opposed to what some interfering busybody thinks they need.

As Chris Snowdon writes in the linked piece:

They think they know what people “need” and what they don’t “need”. Take away their state funding and throw them out on the street where they can return to their natural calling of howling at passers-by. Don’t feather their nests. Burn their nests, smash their eggs, kick them out of public life. The lot of them.

About Frank Davis

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

42 Responses to Kick Them Out Of Public Life

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Youd think Frank they want a worldwide ECONOMIC DEPRESSION COMPLETELY!

    I can only say that when Hitler came to power as did Mussollini the world was in kaos economically and it was ripe for Communism and or socialists to move in and take control.

    In America the same Reds tried it here during the great depression making great strides even in FDRs own administration. He even had to tell his wife to quit going to so many communist functions as it was harming his reelection bid. He even ousted his VP at the time and brought on Harry Truman as his own VP was an avid communist himself.

    Either way it goes these folks want all out control thru the state! They don’t care what they have to use to get it. All out war,internment camps,economic depression or whatever.

    One things for sure when its finally over the U.N. will be a distant memory as that’s where all this BS began.

  2. jaxthefirst says:

    But that’s the trouble, isn’t it? Most of these pious we-know-best merchants are convinced, deep down inside that money is eeeeviiiil. Possibly more so than they actually believe that their headline pet-hate is eeeviiil, although they won’t admit that in public. I know it’s a cliché and I know that there are some exceptions, but most people who advocate this kind of “nudging” for what they clearly think is an utterly ignorant population who can’t be trusted to make their own, adult minds up about things tend to be lefty-eco-warrior types who simply refuse to address any economic questions in any way other than to deny that there’ll be any effect, because in their rosy-tinted, perfect little world we wouldn’t need eeeeviiil money – we’d all operate lovely cosy little local co-operatives and exchange goods and services with each other for free, just like we did in the Middle Ages. Which is pretty much where they would like to take us back to – except for themselves of course.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Jax from what I can figure out and heard. The corporations for the last 45 years have been getting shaken down to the point of takeover by the leftists. Using every arm of the government and the courts to do it. The problem today is corporations did as they were told and invented profit margins that didn’t exist and claiming their values were way above their actual values. Then the FED pumped wall st to the max to pump up stocks and the corporations didn’t have profits to pay stock premiums with for very long si they cut and cut to make up enuf funds to pay out on their stocks. Then they started borrowing money to buy up their own stocks to cut the losses on paying out pumped up values that don’t really exist except on paper. They then had to use the same borrowed moneys to pay stock dividends in the end. Its basically the end of the line. The money wasn’t used to create profits it was used to payoff investors on pumped up stock values that didn’t exist.

      The games up………………

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Frank their are no new car sales except to the government. They’ve been parking all the new cars here and there hiding them from public view anywhere they can. Its the LEASE PLAN that’s moving any cars today.

        Everybodies credit rating is basically in tatters………… own was a 740 back in 07 today its a 580!

        That’s over medical Bills that the veterans administration wouldn’t pay out as they deemed them non-essential services. You go 3 nites without sleep over back problem and finally on the third nite you get your wife to take you to the ER to get some pain meds so you can sleep and they claim you coulda come and seen us…………ya that’s 70 miles away in the middle of the nite in downtown Nashville from me!

        That’s just one example an there are several others. It seems Kentucky counts medical bills against your credit score while tenessee doesn’t!

        In the end the average Joe lost a house and a job,then ran out of benefits and was dropped from the official unemployed rolls and then it drops and Obama claims its improving. Then along comes ZEROCARE that cuts working hours down to roughly 24 hours a week or the employer has to pay fees for the full time workers they have!

        So in todays world you have to work 2 part time jobs to get full time work. Then you get laid off from your minimum wage burger flipper job only to have enuf unemployment built up to last a few months at a rate that couldn’t feed one!

        Then as unemployment ran out the Obama administration changed the rules for SSI and put the unemployed on that and allowed them to work up to 19 hours per week!

        SSI is SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY or as Obama has made it the unemployment grab bag when everything else is gone!

        So now we have more people on SS/SSI than working or nearly at that point. The IMPLOSION is well and truly on its way. Then we have retirees drawing from lucrative retirement plans that are dumped into every market imaginable to get the rates of return needed to pay out 10 grand a month retirements to people like my father in law………..

        When the corporations cant pay and the dirivitives market fails………….guess who loses!

        The government can always print money to pay the veteran pensions but they cant print that other money and pay it all out. That’s why so many have tobacco portfolios its the only thing actually showing PROFIT margins!

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    As Chris Snowdon writes in the linked piece:

    They think they know what people “need” and what they don’t “need”. Take away their state funding and throw them out on the street where they can return to their natural calling of howling at passers-by. Don’t feather their nests. Burn their nests, smash their eggs, kick them out of public life. The lot of them.

    It seems the same thing was said at the end of prohibition!

  4. junican says:

    Your suggestion is precisely what any politician, using common sense, ought not to need to be told, since it is so obvious. There are no Zealots who create; all of them destroy. Damn it! They do not even energise the armaments industry! All they do, funded by the very Government which is supposed to encourage economic activity and innovation, is destroy such innovation.
    What is urgently needed is that people such as Susan Gebb should be taxed to illustrate how they contribute to the economic good of the country. If their ideas suppress the economy without providing alternatives, and, at the same time, persecute THE PEOPLE, then their peers should be ridiculing them. But their peers dare not. There exists a mafia-like cabal in academia which rules supreme. I am not joking – I am serious. It works with titles like ‘Sir’, ‘Doctor’ and ‘Professor’. None of those words have anything like the power of the word ‘Engineer’ – in the true sense. When Faraday discovered how to create electric currents, he was not a Sir, etc. In fact, when he was offered an ‘honour’, he declined.

    There are two things which matter:

    1. Individual choices override epidemiological mumbo-jumbo.
    In the case of supermarkets and shops putting choc bars near the tills, it is THE CHOICE of Mums and Dads to reward their kids for good behaviour in the supermarket with a choc bar which is bought at the till area. That is the best place for the choc bars for those parents.

    2. The opinion of this Susan Gebb only applies to herself. She does not need to buy a choc bar for her offspring if she does not wish to. Imagine what she would do if it was mandatory for all persons who went to supermarkets with kids in tow, to buy them choc bars before the kids were allowed to enter the supermarket.


    I am gradually coming round to the idea that I should bombard my MP with letters and emails, for I think that only MPs can stop the madness, and some MPs stood (deliberately so) for election pretending to be conservatives, labour or liberal, when, in fact, they were not so. They were Zealots, probably motivated because Mum or Dad smoked and died from LC.

    But it is not that easy.
    I tried, at the Bolton Smokers Club, to create a Constituency Group of individuals. The idea was to have at least one person in every constituency, ready and able to bombard the local MP, of whatever persuasion, with letters and emails contradicting the pronouncements of Tobacco Control.

    I suppose that I was a bit naive in expecting more than the Bolton Smokers Club could achieve. But the idea is still absolutely massive. There are only 650 constituencies, and there need only be 650 determined individuals who will pester their MPs. Only 650 determined constituents can change the opinions of their MPs and counter the likes of Susan Gebb.

    Someone said, on the BSC blog, that Simon Clark is a fraud: that he is just making a cushy living via Forest. I do not believe that. It is a cruel thing to say. But it is reasonable to say that Forest is not using its ‘mailing list’ as effectively as it could.
    Has Forest at least ONE person in every constituency in the UK? If it has, and I suspect that it nearly has, then why has it not fought the good fight and demanded that members pester their MPs? I receive many e-mails from Forest, telling me to support, say, anti-PP initiatives, but never have I received an email asking me to be a member of a constituency gang.


    It seems to me that the only people who can stop the persecution of smokers are MPs, since they were the people who started it. It was not the academics, it was the MPs, because only MPs have the actual power.
    If there was one organisation which has enough reach to create a list of ‘friends’ on a constituency basis, one would think that Forest would be supreme. It is so easy. What constituency do you live in? Ask for volunteers. Create a list – at least one volunteer per constituency in the UK. The effect of such a group would be ballistic.

    • Some French Bloke says:

      “It seems to me that the only people who can stop the persecution of smokers are MPs, since they were the people who started it.”

      Problems cannot be solved by the level of awareness that created them (attributed to Albert Einstein)

    • Marvin says:

      “It seems to me that the only people who can stop the persecution of smokers are MPs, since they were the people who started it.”

      It’s refreshing to read that and you are absolutely right of course.
      It makes a change from blaming it all on the EU, the WHO, the UN, NWO, Common Purpose etc.etc. All red herrings and successfully diverting the anger away from the real culprits. If the vote in the UK parliament had been 400/200 against the ban, there would be no ban.

      • V says:

        What can we possibly do if we live in a constituency that’s a constant safe seat for someone like, in my case, Maria Eagle who I know would give hateful and dismissive responses and not listen, though? She is the height of nannying New Labour and has never once voted against her party in her entire time in office and is thus duly rewarded with shadow cabinet posts etc. There would be no point whatsoever except the knowledge that her smug face would press “delete” or else send a link directing me where to get nicotine patches from the NHS or something.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’ve been a pretty regular correspondent with my various MPs. I’m always ignored. Because, apart from a small minority, none of them regard their job as being one of representing their constituents: most of them are representing themselves and nobody else.

      It’s true that they’re the people who started all this, by voting in the smoking ban. But they’re also people who have been as brainwashed as anybody else. In fact, back in 2006, they were being even more brainwashed than the rest of us, by the ‘confidence trick’ that ASH and co employed.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        It cant last forever……………….trust me it ended before and it will again and what truly makes it end quicker is when public outcry against the nanny state gets fever pitched to the point its become a total POLITICAL LIABILITY to even be associated with it. That’s when repeals come and they come FAST AND FURIOUS. KEEP UP THE PRESSURE EVERYDAY ALL THE TIME FEED THE FRENZY…………..

  5. Some French Bloke says:

    Here’s an argument that might have been overlooked:
    In France, a 73,000 ‘tobacco death toll’ number has been ingrained in the French collective psyche by the local media (no need for a reference here, just googling tabac + “73000 morts” yields 870 results). But in the UK this figure shoots to 115,000 according to ASH:

    Click to access ASH_405.pdf

    Smoking prevalence in France is around 30% (women ±28%, men ±32.5%), 20,5% in the UK (women ±19%, men ±22%)
    In 2009 there were 50,848,771 people aged 15 or over (IOW likely to be regular smokers) in the UK and 50,973,599 in France. So we can assume there to be 9 to 10 million British smokers as against 14 to 15 million French smokers.
    The two countries are also essentially comparable as regards the shape of their population pyramids.
    So why, instead of 30+% less ‘burden of disease’ due to tobacco use do the British suffer 57.5 % MORE?
    If the 115,000 figure is to be taken seriously, then the ‘annual smoking death toll’ for France should be 172,500.
    Conversely, taking the 73,000 figure as reference, then the UK figure should dwindle to ±49,000.
    Less mortality logically means fewer life years lost, so why would an average British smoker lose ten life years ‘because of’ smoking while his French counterpart would only lose 6?
    In fact, this difference doesn’t seem to have affected the British age pyramid, as the graphs clearly show:
    We all know the SAMMEC software (aka electronic lie factory) produced these numbers, and depends on ‘etiological fractions’, themselves stemming from Relative Risks levels arrived at in the (in)famous studies, notably by Doll & Hill (and endorsed by 50 years of Surgeon General reports).
    It’s extremely hard to believe this excess mortality could have been avoided through smoking cessation, yet we’re practically commanded to consider the conclusions of those studies to be as incontrovertible as the laws of gravity!
    Not only are the relative risk levels thoroughly unreliable (since similar discrepancies would appear at lower as well as higher levels of RR) but the causal attributions must be plain wrong too!
    Had they been repeatedly challenged over these kinds of discrepancies, the TC ectoplasms would have long since been forced to creep back under their rocks, mumbling paltry excuses while handing back the money to be used for real research. Instead, their Moscow junket next october hasn’t even been cancelled, while the tobacco control-controlled WHO is collecting donations towards research on the Ebola virus!

    On the other side of the pond, the US general public has probably been fed only national ‘estimates’, but different levels are bound to be recorded in Colorado, Winsconsin, Florida etc. and even inside individual states. Look at these two maps showing lung cancer distribution in Texas 1980-1998 (rates seem to be going way up as smoking declines):

    Since smokers in the US and elsewhere have been making themselves scarce since the mid-sixties, the rises in 1990s Texas must reflect a sudden surge in smoking during the fifties… unless we’re dealing with thousands of George Burns-type characters dying of ‘smoking related diseases’ some time after their hundredth birthdays?

    • carol2000 says:

      In the US, the national estimate comes from the Centers for Disease Control’s computer program, Smoking-Attributable Mortality Morbidity and Economic Costs (SAMMEC), which has also been distributed to all the states. It uses the American Cancer Society’s CPS-II claims about supposed smoking risks, which are based on falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. (And they can’t deny this because the CPS-II has no data on infection, by design.) The user plugs in size of the population and the proportion of smokers, and presto.

      • smokervoter says:

        We all remember how Congressman Henry Waxman had all the tobacco company executives appear before his committee in order to answer the question of whether tobacco was addictive or not.

        I’d like to see a similar investigative committee drag before it all of the various public health tobacco experts from all of the various alphabet soup-named agencies in order to answer simply and definitively once and for all the question of just how many people actually die from smoking in any given year and watch the sparks fly.

        And while they’re at it they might want to address the wildly fluctuating figures on how many years a smoker allegedly loses in life expectancy.

        At my website I used to feature a link to an online calculator produced at either Cambridge? or Oxford? University, which under the worst case scenario (bad diet, no exercise, etc.) yielded a loss of 4.5 years to the norm.

        Yet I routinely see 10 years, and even 15 years authoritatively bandied about on the internet and MSM as the definitive number.

        As far as I can see, it is the current Sacred Keeper of the Omnipotent SAF (Smoking-attributable Fraction) who determines the headline statistic du jour.

        Here is the official SAF definition:

        SAFs for each disease are calculated using the following equation: SAF = [(p1(RR1 — 1) + p2(RR2 — 1)] / [p1(RR1 — 1) + p2(RR2 — 1) + 1], where p1 = percentage of current smokers (persons who have smoked >100 cigarettes and now smoke every day or some days), p2 = percentage of former smokers (persons who have smoked >100 cigarettes and do not currently smoke), RR1 = relative risk for current smokers relative to never smokers, and RR2 = relative risk for former smokers relative to never smokers.

        No room for obfuscation and bias-tweaking there, nope. Especially when your scientific grants (and your paychecks) hinge on the results. Sort of like the tobacco CEO’s paychecks did.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Waxman got his balls handed to him in hearings on passive smoking.

        • carol2000 says:

          “I’d like to see a similar investigative committee drag before it all of the various public health tobacco experts from all of the various alphabet soup-named agencies in order to answer simply and definitively once and for all the question of just how many people actually die from smoking in any given year and watch the sparks fly.”

          What on earth makes you think anyone there would doubt them? Any time those bastards appear before Congress, it’s in front of an anti-smoker committee. They parrot their lies and there is never so much as one probing question. As far as Congress is concerned, they HAVE answered definitively how many people die from smoking, and it’s the answer those pieces of shit want to hear. And then Congress shovels piles of money into their budgets. You must be living in some imaginary world if you think otherwise.

        • carol2000 says:

          “Here is the official SAF definition:
          SAFs for each disease are calculated using the following equation: SAF = [(p1(RR1 — 1) + p2(RR2 — 1)] / [p1(RR1 — 1) + p2(RR2 — 1)…”

          That’s not THE official definition, that is the definition used in a particular report (which one you did not note), and it could be different in another report. And that is the least important part of their frauds. The really important fraud is that they falsely blame smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. Usually, they get their data about this from the American Cancer Society’s CPS studies, which all ignore the role of infection. The American Cancer Society has a veritable dictatorship over the government agencies.

    • smokervoter says:

      What balls? The little runt is a eunuch. As are all the males in his ever-so-progressive Westside L.A. congressional district. He always garnered all of the female vote (ergo, pretty much 100% of the electorate), if you know what I mean.

  6. Barry Homan says:

    I say round them all up, seize their bank accounts, give them quick summary trials and sentence each of them to cleaning out public toilets for the rest of their lives.

  7. cdbro says:

    Who can find the figures? Total DoH spending, total cost of NHS, total NHS spending on lobbying Government and ultimately how much these DoH people/quango idiots are wasting on all sorts of unwanted social engineering. Their misuse of valuable funds must surely be a major cause of NHS under-funding and patient suffering.

  8. I think Harley has it right. We are being deliberately impoverished to usher in more socialism – on a global scale. The end of the nation state (we’re almost there already anyway) will finally be a reality.

    It’s what ‘climate change’ is about too. The legislation and ‘green’ taxes make us even less competitive in the West and the deindustrialisation continues. The final ‘New Labour’ government committed us to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.

    You can imagine how this will affect us. The Telegraph reported last Winter that in as little as two years (18 months now) we could be subjected to power cuts because there isn’t enough generating capacity and the mothballed coal-fired stations can’t be brought back into use because the EU’s fines would be so enormous it wouldn’t be worth it. There were only two days’ worth of gas left, as I recall.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up. What have we done? Our country can be fined for opening power stations? So thousands more people will die of the cold; operations will be cancelled; people won’t be able to get to work on electric trains/subways or do anything if/when they manage to get there until the power comes back on.

    It’s all deliberate. These are the biggest traitors ever to have lived. To slowly and callously destroy their country with their fake science. They know manmade climate change is a fraud like they know SHS is a fraud. That’s why they have to pay their own quangos and ‘charities’ and ‘experts’ to lie to them. The ringleaders, that is.

    Maybe not the politicians, like @Marvin says, but most of them are as thick as two short planks and vote for these measures out of sheer ignorance, believing the ‘expert’ reports from their paid liars.

    It is terrorism, Frank. Not just the terrorising with words, but the destruction of the West through economic sabotage (as well as ideological subversion) which is more effective than carpet-bombing us.

    This is why I plan, very soon, to head off to become self-sufficient, because otherwise, I’m sure I’ll freeze and starve.

    • Frank Davis says:

      We are being deliberately impoverished to usher in more socialism – on a global scale.

      Perhaps you’re right. If so, it will be very interesting to see what the response is. After all, economic growth hasn’t just been the imperative of ‘capitalist’ countries, but also of communist countries (except maybe N. Korea). But now we have anti-growth Green and environmentalist movements which quite consciously want to take us back to the Middle Ages. But they have all been the beneficiaries of economic growth, and they happily use the latest technology to jet around the world to conferences promoting anti-growth agendas.

      But I think that when the power cuts start, their heyday will come to an abrupt end. And then everybody is going to hate the goddamn Greens. They’re going to be seen for what they really are: the enemies of all human life.

  9. roobeedoo2 says:

    I wonder if the mandating of ‘hate’ with regards to smoking helped ease in the hatred toward Jews in Nazi Germany:

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Anti-Smoking Group Discusses Funding Cuts

    In Indiana their cutting this groups MONEY!

    45th District State Representative Bionca Gamble received an earful last night from representatives with the Knox and Daviess County Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Program.
    Sally Petty says funding for local programming has been on the decline even though the state received 37-million dollars as part of a settlement with Big Tobacco Companies.
    Gambill says the numbers aren’t a surprise to her.

    Petty believes more can be done to assist those looking to quit smoking and reduce some of their health care costs if funding was restored.
    She says Daviess County is ranked number-one in getting people to quit smoking.
    Partnering with Daviess Community Hospital and other agencies Petty says they developed a program to assist people including a toll free phone line which offers help.
    Gambill was in Vincennes last night as part of her listening tour of the 45th district.

    I figure the states will take everything the Nazis get in public money and MSA money before its over!

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Cigarette smoke toxins: Automated SPME-GC/MS with smoking machine

    Skip to Navigation

    Published: Aug 15, 2014
    Author: Steve Down
    Channels: Base Peak
    thumbnail image: Cigarette smoke toxins: Automated SPME-GC/MS with smoking machine

    Cigarette smoke toxins

    22 Cigarette toxins which are normally measured by different assays have been determined in one automated procedure using a smoking machine and gas sampling bags for SPME-GC/MS, which will allow the exposure conditions of different brands to be compared.

    Cigarette smoking remains globally popular, despite intense efforts to curb it due to its grave health effects. The latest estimation from the World Health Organization puts the total number of tobacco smokers at around 1 billion, more than half of whom will die from it. That’s about 6 million people each year.

    The number of chemicals in cigarette smoke could be as high as 7000, depending where you look, but even the lower estimates put the number at around 5000. Many of these are responsible for cancer or reproductive problems, as well as diseases like emphysema, heart disease, stroke, bronchitis and pneumonia. Because of the number of dangerous volatile organic compounds in the smoke, with up to 70 carcinogens, it is difficult to monitor them all.

    The smoke itself consists of vapour and particulates, requiring that both be monitored. Although there are a number of published ways to do this already in place, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta have devised an automated procedure which they say is superior to many other methods.

    As the team led by senior reporter Maureen Sampson explained, their method measured 22 structurally diverse compounds, including carbonyls and other volatiles like benzene, styrene, xylene, nitrobenzene, toluene, furan and nitromethane, which usually require more than one procedure. The 22 include 16 that have been classified as harmful tobacco or smoke components by the FDA.

    Smoking machine and SPME-GC/MS

    The key to the automated system is linking a smoking machine to a GC/MS system, via an SPME interface. The smoking machine can process 16 cigarettes at once, contributing to the high-throughput capabilities. The smoke particulates were trapped on fibreglass filter pads and the vapour-phase compounds were caught in polymeric collection bags attached to the exhaust ports.

    At the end of each smoking run, three clearing puffs were made to draw residual volatiles from the filter pads into the sampling bags. This extra little step was sufficient to bypass analysis of the pads themselves, because it reduced their contributions to the total vapour phase to less than 5%. So, in this case, only the contents of the bags were analysed since it was the volatiles that interested the researchers.

    The sampling bags were spiked with an internal standard solution containing deuterium-labelled or carbon-13-labelled analogues of the 22 target compounds then warmed for 60 minutes to ensure good mixing of the compounds and standards. They were mounted on special trays on the smoking machine and sampled with an SPME fibre for analysis by GC/MS in selected ion monitoring mode. Three ions were monitored to measure each compound: a quantitation and a confirmation ion for the compound and an ion from the internal standard.

    Targeted toxins

    All 22 volatiles were detected in two types of research cigarette under normal and intense smoking conditions, the latter comprising bigger and longer puffs from cigarettes with blocked filter tips. Strong correlations were observed between certain of the compounds, indicating that the method was sensitive and precise.

    Losses from the sampling bags were observed but they were generally no more than 10% within the first 12 hours and averaged just 2% for the panel of 22. They were presumed to originate from leakages through punctured septa and the O-rings around the bag inlet. Using butyl rubber O-rings reduced the losses.

    In any case, the effects of the losses were countered by the use of the internal standards, which also accounted for any biases introduced by other factors such as adsorption in the bag or other surfaces, SPME fibre overloading, and mass spectrometric ionisation efficiency. The method precision was better when the ratio of the intensity of a volatile compound and its internal standard were used, compared with the absolute intensity.

    The method provides high throughput and minimal sample handling, while increasing the diversity of the types of toxic compounds analysed in the same run. The research team see the method being applied to characterise some of the 3000 different commercial brands of cigarette, so that the exposure of smokers to the toxic volatile compounds can be estimated.

    They accept that smoking machines do not represent true smoking conditions but “our method can capture a wide dynamic range of deliveries sufficient to characterise upper and lower limits of exposure under naturalistic smoking conditions.”

  12. Tom says:

    California outdoor smoking bans spreading into the Sierra Mountain regions, moving outward toward Nevada.

    Last night on the news, Nevada City, California, was announced they just passed a total outdoor smoking ban with major fines and the TV news of course found several anti-smoking hate mongerers to provide sound-bites saying smokers are “horrible”, “filthy”, “disgusting”, etc., saying “SHS is harmful”, “SHS kills”, etc. and then had an (alleged) smoker (or “smoker”?) who they got to stand in front of the camera and say smokers like himself were “filthy” and “threw butts all over the ground” and so he “approves of the outdoor smoking ban” with a big smile on his face.

    So that’s that. It’s been sold and delivered, payoffs done, new world order of thinking established, smoking banned outdoors and that is in Nevada City, a rather large and becoming expensive retirement oriented city pushing up into the Sierra Nevada Mountains east of San Francisco and Sacramento, moving anti-smoking closer to them eventually taking Nevada, which they already have to an extent, but not yet the casinos.

    Smoking bans becoming less prevalent is not what one sees if paying attention around Northern California, where the fake liberal, fake progressive, fake charity, anti-smoking industry provides a lot of employment and economic incentive these days to jump totally on board and then extend this outward, ever more so, toward the rest of the regions and states surrounding NorCal and eventually, beyond.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      It was the same thing in BRANSON Missouri lastnite they allowed no debate just pushed the ban and that was it………I called the mayors office and terrified the mayors secretary with the truth………Especially about gambling proceeds and revel going bankrupt along with OSHAs statement and a whole lot of other stuff from what its done to other towns and cities. She actually took my name and number and said the mayor would surely call me back. After I tolf her my dad and wille nelson were best mates and sang together on the road she really took an interest…………They do Branson at least 4 times a year and are a real crowd maker for the city! Hit em where it hurtz

    • smokervoter says:

      Listen up folks, Tom knows of what he speaks. NorCal is ordinarily Patient Zero in the deadly, ever-spreading worldwide Elfin Safety epidemic.

    • carol2000 says:

      The marijuana lobby is very powerful in northern California. If the anti-pot types start using the same fraud as the anti-smokers, it would be in their self-interest to attack that fraud (which the tobacco industry never has because they’re controlled by anti-smokers).

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    BTW they already started pulling down comments from this story the locals were ripping them up!

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    Outdoor Smokers May Still Sicken Kids with Thirdhand Smoke

    Comments: 0 | Leave A Comment

    Aug 14, 2014

    By Brandon De Hoyos

  15. beobrigitte says:

    Susan Jebb, who chairs the food network of the DoH’s Public Health Responsibility Deal, warned at a meeting earlier this year that she will “go to ministers” if the industry is not quick to reduce the promotion of “products that people don’t need”.

    I have a question. WHO decides what products people don’t need?

    As Chris Snowdon writes in the linked piece:

    They think they know what people “need” and what they don’t “need”. Take away their state funding and throw them out on the street where they can return to their natural calling of howling at passers-by. Don’t feather their nests. Burn their nests, smash their eggs, kick them out of public life. The lot of them.


No need to log in

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

You are commenting using your 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.