No Sneezing

It was a sunny day yesterday and, on an impulse, I stopped off at a local pub for my first drink of the year in its garden.

Big mistake.

The pub was quite busy, and I had to wait to be served, and I only noticed when she passed me my beer that the bargirl had a heavy cold.

That rather spoiled the occasion, as I sat outside wondering how likely it was that I’d catch her cold. In addition, while it was sunny, it was still quite chilly. I wished I’d just gone home. And I wished the bargirl had stayed home too.

And sure enough, this morning I woke with a blocked nose, and a growing sense throughout the day of my head being squeezed in a slowly tightening vice.

A couple of things occurred to me as a result.

Firstly, smoking is banned because secondhand smoke is supposed to pose a threat to other people’s health. But don’t people who are coughing and sneezing in pubs pose a far greater viral health threat to the people around them than any threat from cigarette smoke? There’s a very real threat that if such people go into pubs and sneeze over everyone, they’ll infect them with a cold or flu virus that will have immediate and lasting effects. It might even kill them.

If anything is going to be banned in public places, shouldn’t persistent coughing and sneezing be the very first thing to be banned? Shouldn’t people who do that be required by law to be asked to leave immediately? And shouldn’t people who are coughing and sneezing be required by law to stay home rather than go to work?

I once showed up on the doorstep of some good friends of mine with a full blown cold. As soon as they heard my nasal voice, they threw me straight out. It was a salutary lesson: since then I never go visit anyone if I have cold or flu symptoms. It’s thoughtless and inconsiderate.

In addition I’m reminded of a nursery rhyme,

Ring-a-ring o’ roses,
A pocket full of posies,
A-tishoo! A-tishoo!
We all fall down

It dates from the time of the plague. One of the early symptoms was sneezing: “A-tishoo! A-tishoo!”

If nothing else, it goes to show, once again, that the smoking ban has nothing whatsoever to do with health. If these ‘public health’ experts really were interested in public health, they have begun by wanting to keep highly infectious people in isolation, rather than smokers, who aren’t at all infectious. But they didn’t, and they aren’t.

But I had the further thought that those smokers who stay away from pubs now that smoking is banned in them are probably catching a lot fewer bugs than the people who still frequent them. New studies may show that smoking offers protection against many common infections.  And the social exclusion of smokers will prove to have at least one benefit.

Unfortunately, it looks like it’s a benefit that I won’t be seeing.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

64 Responses to No Sneezing

  1. jaxthefirst says:

    “But I had the further thought that those smokers who stay away from pubs now that smoking is banned in them are probably catching a lot fewer bugs than the people who still frequent them.”

    Isn’t that one of the (mostly deliberately unmentioned) downsides of the airlines’ non-smoking policies – most of which were brought in way before the actual smoking ban legislation. With smoking banned, they were (and are) able to re-use the same air many more times over during the same flight than they had previously been able to do – previously, the smell of re-circulated smoke would have been too noticeable to enable them to re-circulate the air too many times. My understanding is that this enabled them take fewer tanks of fresh air onto the plane, which saved money, but the problem is that all those nasty (scentless) germs being breathed out by people into the cabin air thus now gets many opportunities to whizz round the passenger cabin and infect lots more people, and each time the air is recirculated, more germs are breathed out – and are the recirculated again. Which is why it’s so common these days for people to get nasty coughs, colds (and worse) after flying anywhere – something which was pretty much unheard-of back in the 1970s and early 1980s, before virtually all the airlines went non-smoking.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Yes, it is the same thing, really.

      But I don’t think the airlines ever took “tanks of fresh air” aboard flights. There’s plenty of very fresh air right outside the plane. I believe the problem is that it’s very cold air, 10 km up, and it requires a lot of heat to raise it to cabin temperature, and that’s an extra overhead. So now that smoking is banned, they can reduce the air change rate, and save energy. And that increases the concentration of viruses and bacteria in the air, which isn’t being changed so frequently.

      • Marvin says:

        They use warmed-up, compressed air from the engines, for use inside the cabin.
        Unfortunatley it also contains some vapourised engine oil for you to breathe.
        Still, I suppose that’s preferable to some “deadly” tobacco smoke.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11427509/Warning-over-toxic-fumes-in-plane-cabins.html

      • nisakiman says:

        Today, the quality of aircraft cabin air is carefully controlled. Most modern aircraft recycle about 50% of cabin air, with the remaining 50% being fresh, outside air. But it wasn’t always this way. Partly to account for cigarette smoke, older systems actually used 100% fresh air, compressed, humidified and cooled by the engines in a process that consumed significant energy. To conserve fuel and decrease engine workload, less fresh air is now used, and instead, about half the cabin air is recycled after it is filtered through HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters like those used in hospitals to trap dust particles, bacteria, fungi, and viruses.

        http://www.askmen.com/sports/health_400/479_airplane-air.html

        My personal experience is that I seem to catch far more colds / coughs when I fly these days than I did before they banned smoking, so I’m sure we get a greater ratio of recycled air to fresh air nowadays. And no filters will be 100% effective. Also pertinent is the recirculation speed. Apparently this can vary depending on the system to give a cabin air change every 7 minutes, every 10 minutes or whatever. And I would imagine that the slower the recirculation, the less fuel needed to run it.

        • Furor Teutonicus says:

          Which proves what a lot of shite Wind turbines are for creating electric. Even considering the minimal extra drag, an air craft would be a PERFECT base for a wind turbine to provide air condditioning, lighting, etc. IF it was efficient. The fact they do NOT use them provess that they are NOT.

        • John Watson says:

          It is very possible that the reduction in use of air management systems on aircraft actually enables diseases like Avion Flu and Ebola to be transmitted internationally. When an aircraft is prepared for flight planners have to ensure that there is sufficient fuel not only for the flight itself but for a diversion to another airport, for taxing, for holding (delays) predicted wind speeds and direction are also factored in, the one thing that is not and has never been factored in is additional fuel for the air management system, it costs nothing to heat the air as it is collected via the engine cowlings, it cost nothing to regulate the temperature since outside air is bled into the system to cool it and at -50 they don’t use much of that. The Electrical side is run from generators run by the engines and any hydraulics by hydraulic pumps also run by the engines. The real expense is actually changing the filters however the savings made by leaving the filters longer is probably one set of filters per anum which would reduce the air quality though not by much. it would be the length of time between complete air changes that causes the problem of airborne infections.

        • beobrigitte says:

          My personal experience is that I seem to catch far more colds / coughs when I fly these days than I did before they banned smoking

          That is my experience, too. Even after a short distance flight of 1hr 30 min 90% of the time I come down with a cold. It’s annoying and I don’t remember this happening when I could smoke inside airplanes.

          It is very possible that the reduction in use of air management systems on aircraft actually enables diseases like Avion Flu and Ebola to be transmitted internationally. When an aircraft is prepared for flight planners have to ensure that there is sufficient fuel not only for the flight itself but for a diversion to another airport, for taxing, for holding (delays) predicted wind speeds and direction are also factored in, the one thing that is not and has never been factored in is additional fuel for the air management system
          Wasn’t it one of the budget airlines that a couple of years ago had TWO airplanes at the same time announcing “fuel emergency” over a Spanish airport when their originally planned route had to be changed due to bad weather and neither had enough fuel for a diversion?

          How much extra fuel would be required to return the air exchange rate to what it was when people could smoke inside airplanes? Is is a case of tobacco control pointing out potential fuel savings that made the airlines rush into a smoking ban?

        • nisakiman says:

          Years ago, when the smoking bans started on airlines, someone I knew who worked as a flight attendant told me that the airlines were all very keen on the smoking ban because it reduced turnaround time (no ashtrays to empty and clean), and saved fuel running the aircon system as they could recycle more.

          She was only a flight attendant though, so I can’t attest to the truth of what she told me.

        • John Watson says:

          It is rare thing when flight planners get it wrong, it sounds like the flights concerned had already been diverted had used up its allotted fuel for that and found that the weather at the alternate also to be near minimum (the rule of thumb is if the pilots cannot see the runway at the company’s decision height then they go around and try again) while most airliners can actually land blind (a few can even land themselves under the pilots supervision) it is not generally done as a matter of routine. Even with the 30 min reserve that they are required to carry it will allow one go around unless the pilot declares an emergency and asks for a direct approach which jumps him/her to the front of the queue. It has to be remembered that within the aviation industry passenger safety is almost always the first priority. Occasionally stupid errors do happen, a Boeing 767 holds the airliner’s gliding record after running out of fuel in mid-Atlantic and gliding to the Azores some 160 miles away, investigation showed that the fuel load sheet was written up as Kilogrammes but the aircraft was fuelled using pounds giving the aircraft a little under half of the fuel required, in this case the pilots did a truly remarkable job landing their aircraft at an airfield in mid ocean with no injuries to passengers and crew. No extra fuel is loaded to run the air management systems

        • Frank Davis says:

          Here’s another one.

    • Jax, just a couple of years after the US did its big total airplane ban, Consumer Reports ran an issue with the cover story and picture being devoted to the question, “What’s Happened To Airplane Air?” (pic of choking green passengers looking sickly out of a flying airplane’s windows). CR had in general been quite supportive of the ban, and that support continued throughout the article as they seemed to bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the ban as the elephant in the room that had brought about the recent change for the worse that they were bemoaning.

      I don’t have the reference handy at the moment, but I believe there was a massive European Airline Personnel study done a while ago showing that the nonsmoking airplane workers (I think it included both pilots and steward/esses) were suffering from fewer “smoking related diseases” than the general population that wasn’t so heavily exposed. Dunno how valid it was since I can see all sorts of confounders that would be hard to correct for though. If anyone has the cite handy on it, I’d like to look it over again!

      More recently, I remember either a study or an extensive “investigative article” on those jet-fuel/insulation/antifreeze type airplane fumes that portrayed them as a BIG problem, with a number of forced landings. If anyone has the cite handy, can you post it or send it to me? Thankee!

      – MJM

  2. Thanks again to Miss Rose for this a smoking pub is a sterilized Pub

    Medicinal Smoke Reduces Airborne Bacteria – 2007

    “This study represents a comprehensive analysis and scientific validation of our ancient knowledge about the effect of ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care on airborne bacterial composition and dynamics, using the Biolog® microplate panelsand Microlog® database.

    In this study, we have designed an air sampler for microbiological air sampling during the treatment of the room with medicinal smoke. In addition, elimination of the aerial pathogenic bacteria due to the smoke is reported too.

    We have observed that 1 h treatment of medicinal smoke emination by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri = material used in oblation to fire all over India) on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24 h in the closed room.

    Absence of pathogenic bacteria Corynebacterium urealyticum, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter aerogenes (Klebsiella mobilis), Kocuria rosea, Pseudomonassyringae pv. persicae, Staphylococcus lentus, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. tardicrescens inthe open room even after 30 days is indicative of the bactericidal potential of the medicinal smoke treatment.

    We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to completely eliminate diverse plant and human pathogenic bacteria of the air within confined space.
    Work has implications to use the smoke generated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferousand medicinal herbs, within confined spaces such as animal barns and seed/grain warehouses to disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner.
    Work indicates that certain known medicinal constituents from the havan sámagri can thus be added to the burning farm material while disposing unwanted agriculture organic material, in order to reduce plant pathogenicorganisms.

    In particular, it highlights the fact that we must think well beyond the physical aspects of smoke on plants in natural habitats and impacts heavily on our understanding of fire as adriving force in evolution.
    We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to contain diverse pathogenic bacteria of the air we breathe.

    The work also highlights the fact about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients for containing indoor airborne infections within confined spaces used for storage of agriculture comodities.

    The dynamic chemical and biological interactions occurring in the atmosphere are much more complex than has been previously realized. The findings warrant a need for further evaluation of various ingredients present in the complex mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs, individually and in various combinations to identify the active principlesinvolved in the bactericidal property of the medicinal smoke, applied in the above discussed fashion.”
    Formerly http: //www.agri-history.org/pdf/Medic…

    Abstract
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

    Medicinal smokes

    Abstract
    “All through time, humans have used smoke of medicinal plants to cure illness.
    To the best of our knowledge, the ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care have not been studied.
    Mono- and multi-ingredient herbal and non-herbal remedies administered as smoke from 50 countries across the 5 continents are reviewed.

    Most of the 265 plant species of mono-ingredient remedies studied belong to Asteraceae (10.6%), followed by Solanaceae (10.2%), Fabaceae (9.8%) and Apiaceae (5.3%). The most frequent medical indications for medicinal smoke are pulmonary (23.5%), neurological (21.8%) and dermatological (8.1%).

    Other uses of smoke are not exactly medical but beneficial to health, and include smoke as a preservative or a repellent and the social use of smoke.

    The three main methods for administering smoke are inhalation, which accounts for 71.5% of the indications; smoke directed at a specific organ or body part, which accounts for 24.5%; ambient smoke (passive smoking), which makes up the remaining 4.0%. Whereas inhalation is typically used in the treatment of pulmonary and neurological disorders and directed smoke in localized situations, such as dermatological and genito-urinary disorders, ambient smoke is not directed at the body at all but used as an air purifier.

    The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production. This review highlights the fact that not enough is known about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form.

    Furthermore, this review argues in favor of medicinal smoke extended use in modern medicine as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

    • But I made the mistake of kissing my sick wife and now got her stomach bug…………

      So kissing a pub barmaid would likely still get you the cold……..Now Frank who ya been kissing LOL

    • Frank Davis says:

      I know that wood smoke (and tobacco smoke) is bactericidal, fungicidal, and insecticidal, but does it kill off viruses too? Particularly since viruses aren’t actually living things, but bits of DNA.

      According to this, cannabis is a virus killer:

      Being a natural virus killer, Allen also notes how cannabis can prevent the other harmful consequences of Ebola

      If cannabis is a “virus killer”, I bet tobacco is too.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Particularly since viruses aren’t actually living things, but bits of DNA.

        Not really. They do have a protein coat, ‘know’ how to get their DNA into a host cell and ‘know’ HOW to use the host’s intracellular environmental components to ensure not only their survival but also multiple replication of themselves.

        Bacteria can be a pain and, yes, they can mutate VERY fast. A virus is far more serious. On top of it, our obsession with ‘germ-freeness’ (whatever this is supposed to be – it’s a sales gimmick!) IS the cause of all the allergies and increasing amounts of autoimmune diseases we see nowadays.

        “Healthy” living is a killer. Perhaps it IS my cigarettes that not only kill excess bacteria, but also virae and leave enough to allow my HEALTHY immune system to it’s job?

  3. waltc says:

    I read not too long ago that the two costliest health related problems for employers are people who come to work sick and sicken their co-workers (massive lost productivity and medical expenses for those who develop complications) and whopping annual expenses for people with diabetes. Not a word about smokers.

    Most depressing line in the article posted on yesterday’s thread about why college kids smoke was this ( if true, since it may –or I hope it may– come from phone surveys where respondents try to be PC ) but, here you go: ” More than 70 percent of Americans, including about half of current smokers, do not allow smoking in their homes. “

  4. Lepercolonist says:

    In my government job, only bronchitis or pneumonia ( with a doctor’s slip) is grounds for being absent from work. You are encouraged to report for work even with a heavy cold. You are subject to disciplinary action for unscheduled absences.

    Smokers with heavy colds are still forced outside in frigid temperatures. That’s because they ‘care’ for our well being. They are trying to help smokers. Right.

  5. Zaphod says:

    If a bug is going round, I’m gonna get it. So, the sooner, the better.
    I like to keep my immune system up to date, and fighting fit. So I don’t do obsessive hygiene, or avoid sneezers. I want that bug’s ID now, before it evolves better weapons.

    There was a sci-fi, (Gregory Benford, Heart of the Comet?), a long crewed space flight in which part of the doctor’s job was to regularly release diseases in the air system. He wasn’t popular.

    This may be just a rationalization to cover the fact that I’m a slob?

    My “Typhoid Mary” approach may seem irresponsible, but it beats the Howard Hughes system.
    That which doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger.
    (But admittedly, that which does eventually kill me, will kill me.)

  6. Furor Teutonicus says:

    Colds and flu?

    Hahahaha.

    Here they are more worried about T.B, brought in by the tens of thousands of scummy Gypoes and Russians.

    • jaxthefirst says:

      Funny you should say that, Furor. Many, many years ago, my OH got TB as a teenager – he still has a mild physical disability because of it. As we are a couple of old gits, this was way before the mass immigration of the EU, but it did shortly follow the UK’s own mass immigration policy of bringing thousands of people from other Commonwealth countries into the UK – using the very same arguments as the immigration-lovers today are using, i.e. to “do the jobs that we can’t get British people to do,” (funny how the “reasons” never change, isn’t it?). This policy was followed by a sharp spike in cases of TB, which had declined to almost nothing over the previous century.

      Even then, the inability of politicians to admit that there was any kind of downside to any of “their” policies was evident, in that no-one was ever permitted to connect the two in public conversation or media articles etc. But doctors knew the score and, privately, the doctor in charge of my OH’s treatment admitted that the sudden increase in cases was caused by the recent arrivals’ habit of spitting in the street – something which, again, had long become socially unacceptable in the UK, but in their home countries was regarded as a perfectly normal thing to do. Apparently, the reason why spitting spreads diseases like TB is because the bacteria which causes it spreads via airborne droplets; when an infected person spits, these bacteria are released into the air and continue to be released as the expelled saliva or phlegm dries, thereby entering the atmosphere which everyone else breathes. Sort of “passive spitting,” I guess. Yuk! Makes “passive smoking” seem positively joyous in comparison.

      Needless to say, no-one was ever allowed to mention this in public and, of course, back then antibiotics were much more effective than they are today – none of those ultra-resistant strains caused by over-use of the drugs – so the problem was less evident than today’s cases are (because we have a similar problem here again in the UK, same as you do, and probably for the same reasons) and so they were able to quietly treat people whilst the new arrivals gradually got used to the fact that spitting wasn’t acceptable here and – unlike today – wanting to be a real part of British society, stopped doing it. Now, of course, we’ve all got the same problem all over again, but compounded by the resistant strains of the TB germs and, of course, by the latest arrivals’ dogged resistance against adapting their “home” behaviour in any way in order to fit in with their hosts’ – an attitude which is aided and abetted by our politically-correct, right-on, “everyone is entitled to their own culture” leaders. True, there have been some recent cases in London where local authorities have undertaken “no spitting” campaigns, and have even threatened to impose fines for it, but generally speaking, the people who are doing it don’t think that these rules apply to them, because they think they are protected by the fact that it’s “their culture” and “nobody thinks it is wrong when we are in our home countries.” And the sad thing is, in today’s society, they are probably right, which renders such campaigns essentially pointless.

      • Furor Teutonicus says:

        XX was caused by the recent arrivals’ habit of spitting in the street XX

        I have seen them. They DID exist.

        And these were enamel (sp? I am forgetting my English!) signs put up on walls around the town that “Spitting in the street is an offence, under (IIRC) The “Town Police clauses act 1847.” (My Favourite!)

        We had one on the wall of our house.

        As is usual, it took a long time, but it was a reaction to the TB brought back to G.B after the Napoleonic wars, and it was put foreward by Lord Wellington in 1846, but was made law in 1847.

        As I say, IF I remember correctly, but I am 90% sure that is the history behind it.

        • The health Nazis back in the day mandated the use of spittoons to keep down TB as they thought it came from chewing tobacco being discarded………..Even so spittoons became a popular barroom old west back drop.

        • nisakiman says:

          I remember from the late 60s, Harley, when I was in the middle east and India, spittoons were a normal feature in any bar, café, restaurant or hotel room. Usually streaked with brown (from naswar [like snus but without the packet]), or scarlet red (from Betel nut: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areca_nut )

      • Rose says:

        Oddments

        Shocker: `Villain’ Nicotine Slays Tb
        A Ucf Researcher Said That Less Nicotine Than Is In A Single Cigarette Works.

        Nicotine might be a surprising alternative someday for treating stubborn forms of tuberculosis, a University of Central Florida researcher said Monday.

        The compound stopped the growth of tuberculosis in laboratory tests, even when used in small quantities, said Saleh Naser, an associate professor of microbiology and molecular biology at UCF.”

        “Unsure what specific component was at work, he decided to test nicotine because it is the most-studied compound in the tobacco plant. He got lucky. First nicotine killed regular tuberculosis, and then harder, drug-resistant strains that will not succumb to the usual medicines.”
        http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2001-05-22/news/0105220081_1_nicotine-tuberculosis-tb

        Nicotine fix

        “Naser and his colleague George Ghobrial found that as little as 0.27 micrograms of nicotine per millilitre was enough to kill Mycobacterium tuberculosis. It was also effective against other strains of Mycobacteria.

        Naser says that smoking doesn’t work because the level of nicotine fluctuates so much. “The dosage is wrong,” he says.

        The advantage of nicotine, Naser claims, is that it should work against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, he doesn’t yet understand how it destroys bacterial cells. His team now plans to test nicotine on TB bacteria growing in tissue cultures. ”
        http: //www.newscientist.com/article/dn769#.VPxsVY73odU

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

        Gabriele Schulze and Käte Dischner in their jointly written Die Zigarettenraucherin (‘The Female Cigarette Smoker’, Jena, 1942),

        “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

        Eeek! I didn’t know that!

        School TB vaccination dropped
        2005

        “Schoolchildren will no longer be immunised against tuberculosis after public health experts decided the vaccination programme has little impact on control of the disease, the government said today.

        The chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, announced that the £10m vaccination programme, offered to all children aged 10-14, is to be dropped because schoolchildren are at lowest risk of contracting tuberculosis (TB).

        “Instead, the vaccine will be offered to young babies in high risk areas with large immigrant populations such as London, and those whose parents or grandparents have lived in parts of the world where TB is epidemic, including Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

        Sir Liam said: “These recommendations reflect the changing patterns of TB infection in this country and mean we can better protect children and others who are at higher risk.”
        http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jul/06/schools.education

        I never thought I’d say it, but thank heavens I was given the BCG injection at school. Bloody hurt though.

        • beobrigitte says:

          I never thought I’d say it, but thank heavens I was given the BCG injection at school. Bloody hurt though.

          So was I. And the smallpox one, too. Both were a waste of time for me. My body does not ‘remember’ after 18 month the TB one and the smallpox one is not stored in the ‘long-term’ B-cell memory.

        • beobrigitte says:

          I have learned that there are many more people like me. Also, the TB we are dealing with nowadays is not the same strain wewere being vaccinated against. A lot of the TB strains are antibiotic resistant.

          It costs a lot of money to develop antibiotics -by now the most effective ones are incredibly ‘poisonous’. Pharmaceutical companies have to make money – no Bill Gates is interested in funding a long term (we are talking huge money!!!) programme to keep up with the rapidly mutating micro-organisms.

          We are on an idiot’s path – pointing the finger at people who smoke/vape; love sugar; eat fast foods etc. because it’s cheap to do. In the meantime these little buggers (that is virae and bacteriae) adapt – and gain advantage.

          If you ask me – no flu shots etc. I stick with my cigarette (end e-cig to stretch my tobacco) and have a life. I’ve seen too many youngsters die in the last 13 month.

  7. Jude says:

    I feel for the poor barmaid having to work while so obviously ill. As a casual worker myself, (not my choice), if I don’t work I don’t get paid. (I imagine the barmaid is under much the same contract). There are no paid sick days, and no paid leave at all, so if I’m unfortunate enough to become ill, I have to go to work regardless, I simply cannot afford to take time off for a cold or flu, I’m on minimum wage, so there’s no room for luxuries like staying home to get better. This means that inevitably others will catch whatever I have, despite warning people, and being hygienic about it, and not coughing or touching people etc.

    I figure that if the company loses productivity because of me having to go to work sick, well tough luck, they could always give employees better working conditions so they could take the time needed to get well, without being financially penalised for it.

    Mind you, as a vaper, I rarely get sick, nor did I suffer many colds or flus as a smoker. My non-smoking, non-vaping work mates, get sick far more often than I do.

    • Frank Davis says:

      if I don’t work I don’t get paid.

      That’s what I thought was most likely the case with her.

      • prog says:

        I believe that private sector employers are not obliged to pay anything for the first 3 days of absenteeism. Then it’s about £80/wk (pro rata /day), but only if the employee has a doctors note. I think most salaried public sector employees get paid from day 1.

        • Jude says:

          In Australia, there is no payment if you have to take a sick day as a casual worker, doesn’t matter how long you have worked for the business. The most likely outcome in a hospitality business, is that if you take a day off because of illness, you wont have a job to come back to. (There are some good employers, but they are few and far between).

          Casual work has become very common here, because the worker has no rights, and can be sacked with only an hours notice, for any reason or no reason.

          This means that some very ill people are going to work regardless of how contagious they are, or how seriously ill they are. As with the barmaid in Franks story, these are the people that work in the hospitality and service industries, that are in contact with food and drinks, and people, all the time in their jobs. It would be a miracle if no one caught whatever they have.

      • beobrigitte says:

        if I don’t work I don’t get paid.

        This IS the case in Britain in the catering industry, too. Isn’t it interesting that people, being unwell, spreading a virus to customers are classed as “acceptable risk”?

        What is when an employee of the catering industry suffers from diarrhoea? I do know that nurses are NOT ALLOWED to be back in work unless they are symptom free for 48 hours.

        So, I go to a pub and one employee has diarrhoea but cannot afford to be off work (hell, the rent/mortgage/bills have to be paid). I am being kicked outside the place for a cigarette – but the person who sorted out the meal (pubs do carveries to incite customers inside the place these days) happens to have diarrhoea…..

        Start thinking, people, start thinking…..

  8. Rose says:

    Smoking in planes and aerotoxic syndrome, a tale of greed and deception so long I’ll break all the links, perhaps Frank would be good enough to stick them back together [done]

    The airlines had been worried about the effects of bleed-air from the engines since the 50’s

    “As the case developed, Boeing turned over 250,000 pages of documents dating to 1954 and 1955 that showed the company was aware of cabin air contamination and had sought detection and filtration systems to combat the problem. Others documented concern among executives that there could be health hazards related to exposure to toxic fumes when oil leaks into bleed-air systems.”

    But anti-tobacco had already claimed all those health hazards for secondhand smoke.

    SMOKING BAN NEAR ON FLIGHTS IN U.S – 1988

    “Congress ordered the rule in December after two decades of pressure from consumer and health groups and warnings by the Surgeon General of the United States and the National Academy of Sciences about the dangers of second-hand smoke in an enclosure like an airline cabin.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/17/us/smoking-ban-near-on-flights-in-us.html

    Where there’s a blame, there’s a claim.

    BIG TOBACCO YIELDS TO FLIGHT ATTENDANTS; CLASS ACTION ENDS IN LANDMARK SETTLEMENT.
    Oct 11, 1997

    “The flight attendants’ long-shot legal war against cigarette manufacturers ended Friday with a stunning battlefield surrender by Big Tobacco: An unprecedented $349 million settlement in the landmark secondhand smoke case.

    Individual flight attendants will receive no money in the deal. Instead, the tobacco industry agreed to funnel $300 million into a newly created medical research foundation.

    The rest of the money goes to the flight attendants’ lawyers, the Miami husband-and-wife team of Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt. Their payday Friday: $46 million in fees plus $3 million to offset costs.”

    “The industry made no admissions Friday and did not accept responsibility for any illnesses suffered by flight attendants.”
    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-83887989.html

    Which was used to set up FAMRI

    Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute
    FAMRI
    http://www.famri.org/about_famri/mission_statement.html

    Which did not please the flight attendants who took part.

    Flight attendants voice anger over tobacco settlement – 1998

    A $349 million settlement of a landmark secondhand smoke lawsuit will stand, despite controversy over paying $46 million to attorneys and nothing to the flight attendant plaintiffs, a judge said in an order released Friday.

    The class action lawsuit, in which some 60,000 nonsmoking flight attendants sued the tobacco industry for secondhand smoke injuries, was settled last October.

    The lawsuit alleged the cigarette makers knew the dangers to nonsmokers of cigarette smoke, and hid the health risks from flight attendants and other Americans. It was the first class-action lawsuit against the tobacco industry — and the first suit addressing secondhand smoke — to go to trial.

    Settlement paid for foundation, legal fees

    In the settlement, the tobacco industry agreed to pay $300 million to create a foundation to study the effects of cigarette smoke on flight attendants, and to pay the legal fees and expenses of the flight attendants’ attorneys.

    While the settlement was in the flight attendants’ favor, a small but growing number now feel the agreement was harmful because it left all 60,000 flight attendants out in the cold. ”

    No money went into plaintiffs’ pockets

    “But the settlement included nary a penny for any of the flight attendants who joined the lawsuit.

    “We want a fair share of what we’re entitled to,” said flight attendant Barbara Kaye, who added that she doesn’t care about funding for the foundation to study secondhand smoke’s effects. “I already know what the effects are. They don’t have to study it any further as far as I’m concerned.”

    The agreement does allow flight attendants the right to take their case to court against tobacco, even if that right would otherwise have expired under statutes of limitation.

    But some flight attendants say they don’t have the money to fight the industry individually. “That’s why we joined together for a class action suit,” said flight attendant Gail Ford. “It was the one way we could go to court and hopefully win, and that’s all been lost.”
    http://edition.cnn.com/US/9802/06/flight.attendants.smoke/

    But apparently it still wasn’t enough.

    Tobacco Case Judgment Of $350 Million Was Too Small, Lawyers Say
    1999

    “MIAMI — Outside attorneys seeking to upset a $350 million trial settlement against Big Tobacco argued to an appeals court on Monday that flight attendants sold out their case too cheaply.

    The October 1997 deal came four months into the nation’s first trial of a class action complaint against the tobacco industry. The deal would fund a $300 million foundation that would seek to find early detection methods and cures for diseases flight attendants said they contracted through exposure to secondhand smoke.

    The flight attendants claimed in a lawsuit filed in 1991 that because tobacco companies conspired to cover up the dangers of secondhand smoke, they fell victim to everything from bronchitis to lung cancer.

    Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Robert Kaye called the settlement “an extraordinary accomplishment in an extraordinary case” in his order approving it. He also signed off on a $46 million fee and $3 million for costs to Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt, attorneys for the flight attendants.”
    http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1999-01-05/news/9901050093_1_flight-attendants-big-tobacco-tobacco-industry

    After the smokescreen had cleared –

    Illness among cabin crew heightens toxic air fears – 2009

    “A survey of pilots and crew has found alarmingly high levels of illnesses they have contracted since beginning work for airlines.

    One in seven of the 789 British airline staff surveyed had to take more than a month’s sick leave in the previous year. One in 23 was diagnosed with cancer, even though the average age of those surveyed was around 40. According to Cancer Research, one in 34 Britons will contract cancer at some point, but for those under 44, the figure falls to one in 200.”

    “The reports, seen by Telegraph Travel, also reveal high levels of miscarriages, thyroid conditions, high blood pressure, cholesterol, pneumonia, bronchitis and IBS. Campaigners claim that the high levels of illness are the result of toxic engine fumes contaminating the air in cabins, and say this has implications for passenger safety and the health of frequent fliers.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/5849374/Illness-among-cabin-crew-heightens-toxic-air-fears.html

    But eventually truth will out.

    Boeing suit settlement stirs jetliner air safety debate
    2011

    “SEATTLE — A former flight attendant is believed to be the first person in the U.S. to settle a lawsuit against the Boeing Co. over what she claims is faulty aircraft design that allowed toxic fumes to reach the cabin, triggering tremors, memory loss and severe headaches.”

    “As the case developed, Boeing turned over 250,000 pages of documents dating to 1954 and 1955 that showed the company was aware of cabin air contamination and had sought detection and filtration systems to combat the problem.

    Others documented concern among executives that there could be health hazards related to exposure to toxic fumes when oil leaks into bleed-air systems.

    “It’s bizarre that we’re talking about the 1950s, but that’s where our air data comes from with respect to the MD-80,” Brodkowitz said.

    “To this day, the only thing filtering this toxic soup out of the cabin are the lungs of the passengers and crew.”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44777304/ns/travel-news/t/boeing-suit-settlement-stirs-jetliner-air-safety-debate/#.T7p7RYGfXVo

    • nisakiman says:

      Perhaps the tobacco companies should ask for their $349 million back, since it would seem that the basis of the claim (second-hand tobacco smoke) was mistaken, and the real culprit was in fact toxic fumes from the engines.

    • Frank Davis says:

      In the settlement, the tobacco industry agreed to pay $300 million to create a foundation to study the effects of cigarette smoke on flight attendants, and to pay the legal fees and expenses of the flight attendants’ attorneys.

      How do they study the effects of cigarette smoke on flight attendants, now that smoking is banned on almost all flights? I think we can safely say that there aren’t going to be any such studies.

      And how the heck do the attendants’ attorneys run up $46 million in legal fees and expenses? Do they have thousands of people working for them? Do they have enormous overheads in the form of gas, electricity, and iron ore shipments?

      And how come engine oil gets into the air supply? Can’t they draw in air from in front of the engine, rather than behind?

      The whole thing is a complete crock.

      • About 2=3 years ago I fell upon the airline stewardess website for anti-smoking research

        They had one claim in mind,they were only looking to supply funding for young in school epidemiologists…………..I can only assume thy were set up as a junk science recruitment system to get young dumb so called newby researchers to do their dirty work as the more respectable folks had all dumped such junk science activities to protect their names and profession.

      • Rose says:

        Tobacco companies don’t pay the fines, their customers do.

        So what did we get in exchange for our $349 apart from funding lawyers and getting the airlines of the hook?

        Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (FAMRI)

        “Upon opening its doors in 2001, FAMRI continues to achieve its goals by making qualified distributions to combat the diseases caused by second hand tobacco smoke through a peer-reviewed, competitive process.”

        Grants for 2002 – 2003

        Lots of names you will recognise, all taking a share , including Banzhaf for
        “Legal action and education against tobacco smoke pollution”

        I remember that Dr Siegel once said that he had recieved funding from FAMRI, and here he is –

        Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute: Competitive Grants and Distinguished Professor Awards 2002

        Table 1 (continued)

        Boston University School Of Public Health Michael B. Siegel, M.D., MPH $600,000

        Study effects of secondhand smoke on workers and the public.
        http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/suppl_1/i67.full.pdf

        Though his main claim to fame is –

        Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace. A review of employee exposure and health effects.
        Siegel M – 1993

        Abstract
        OBJECTIVE:

        “To determine the relative exposure to environmental tobacco smoke for bar and restaurant employees compared with office employees and with nonsmokers exposed in the home (part 1) and to determine whether this exposure is contributing to an elevated lung cancer risk in these employees (part 2).”

        CONCLUSIONS:

        “Environmental tobacco smoke is a significant occupational health hazard for food-service workers. To protect these workers, smoking in bars and restaurants should be prohibited.”
        http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8320789

        We have this contribution falling in the time frame –

        Exposure to secondhand smoke and excess lung cancer mortality risk among workers in the “5 B’s”: bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting establishments, and bingo parlours – 2003
        M Siegel and M Skeer

        Abstract

        Data sources: Using the Medline, Toxline, and Toxnet databases, the internet, and bibliographies of relevant articles, we identified studies that reported measurements of ambient nicotine concentrations in the 5 B’s.

        Data synthesis: Nicotine concentrations in the 5 B’s were 2.4 to 18.5 times higher than in offices or residences, and 1.5 to 11.7 times higher than in restaurants. At these exposure levels, estimated working lifetime excess lung cancer mortality risk from secondhand smoke exposure for workers in the 5 B’s is between 1.0–4.1/1000, which greatly exceeds the typical de manifestis risk level of 0.3/1000.

        Conclusions: Workers in the 5 B’s have high levels of occupational exposure to secondhand smoke and must be included in workplace smoking regulations.”
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747744/

        Though I don’t know if we paid for that one or not.

        I did not appreciate being banned from planes and have never flown since, after all we warned about the recycled air and the risk of disease if the fresh air intake was ever turned off to save fuel.

        • That restaurant study is the one he got his ass kicked on,Audrey has the whole story over at Clash on it………….no link but its there

        • Smoking Lamp says:

          Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960-1997,” American Journal of Epidiemiology, Vol. 156, No. 6, which states on p. 564,
          “We found a rather remarkably low SMR [Standardized Mortality Ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights.”

        • Rose says:

          Flying the smoky skies: secondhand smoke exposure of flight attendants – 2004

          J Repace

          “Objective: To assess the contribution of secondhand smoke (SHS) to aircraft cabin air pollution and flight attendants’ SHS exposure relative to the general population.

          Methods: Published air quality measurements, modelling studies, and dosimetry studies were reviewed, analysed, and generalised.

          Results: Flight attendants reported suffering greatly from SHS pollution on aircraft. Both government and airline sponsored studies concluded that SHS created an air pollution problem in aircraft cabins, while tobacco industry sponsored studies yielding similar data concluded that ventilation controlled SHS, and that SHS pollution levels were low”
          http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/suppl_1/i8.full

        • Rose says:

          Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute

          James Repace Msc – $600,000 – Scientific study regarding second hand tobacco smoke
          in the hospitality industry

        • beobrigitte says:

          Rose,
          ‘Tornado-Repace’ wrote (or fed ‘data’ into a by now known software that generates papers) this utter nonsense, probably having a laugh when sending it off to be printed…

          Results: Flight attendants reported suffering greatly from SHS pollution on aircraft.
          Lets compare air exchange rates on an airplane in flight prior to the smoking ban and after the smoking ban.
          It would be interesting to hear of the flight attendants falling ill with e.g. colds in the first year after the smoking ban. Any drop after that I suspect is caused by the flight attendants having become as resilient as teachers or staff working in microbiology due to overexposure and a properly working immune system.
          However, this does not apply to the newer/rare starins of virae, such as the Ebola strain still raging in West Africa. (It is burning out in Liberia but still rampant in Sierra Leone – total death toll of >8000 people in 12 month!)

          Tornado-Repace gives a rather limited intellectual impression – but by now has an enviable retirement fund? He appears to have shown no interest in even the simplest aspects of what he wrote….

          I am eagerly awaiting the ‘Only-a-tornado-will-clear-the-second-hand-vape-from-enclosed-spaces’ paper. But then, the vapers are being kicked out with the smokers because VAPING-REMINDS-OF-SMOKING. The FACT that vaping is nothing like smoking is irrelevant.
          Let’s push for another one of ‘Tornado-Repace’s’ papers – and then compare. My bet is that he’ll present the same utter nonsense, just having substituted “SHS” for “passive-vape”.

          I want the truth. Will tobacco companies/vaping companies start financing studies? They would be on par with tobacco control studies. All of them have an interest, none is non-biased. It’s just that tobacco control got their lobbying the rich people in….

      • nisakiman says:

        How do they study the effects of cigarette smoke on flight attendants, now that smoking is banned on almost all flights?

        Heh! Good point, Frank. I’d missed that one! :)

        And how the heck do the attendants’ attorneys run up $46 million in legal fees and expenses?

        Nice work if you can get it…

        I’m in the wrong profession…

      • beobrigitte says:

        And how come engine oil gets into the air supply?
        Good question – was on my list – Let’s see what ‘Tornado-Repace’ comes up with.!

        Can’t they draw in air from in front of the engine, rather than behind?
        It would be from the front – it’s quick’n’easy! (I never thought that the little bits I learned from the pilots in my family would come in handy!!!!)

        My dream job was being a pilot – we were discouraged back then. Especially people my size. I flew a cessna once but found it hard to see where I’m going. I cursed a lot and let the co-pilot (starfighter pilot) take over before we hit the trees….. Half of my view was not there because I was too small to see all of the window. But he did say that my first time landing a plane was text book….
        It’s nice to know that despite limitations (far too soon accepted as a youngster) I could have done the job.

        Sod’s law has it, my friend does not fly passengers. If she did I’d be in the cockpit!!!!

    • Introduction to air purifiers and VOCs, Part 1

      Air Quality News from IQAir

      Colorado-based HVAC Contractor Alex Walter recently asked IQAir’s Air Quality News to explain what “VOCs” are and how they are identified …

      It’s important to keep in mind that air pollutants can take two forms: 1) solid and liquid particles, and 2) gases.

      Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are indoor gases emitted from solids or liquids. They are of concern to air quality specialists because many of them have serious short- and long-term adverse health effects.

      In sufficient quantities, VOCs can cause eye, nose and throat irritations, headaches, dizziness, visual disorders, memory impairment. Some are known to cause cancer in animals; some are suspected of causing, or are known to cause, cancer in humans. Among the most dangerous VOCs in homes and commercial buildings:
      •Toluene (Methylbenzene), mostly from paint thinners. Toluene is toxic, but less so than, for example, Benzene (see below).
      •Xylene (para and/or meta), comes from printed materials, rubber and leather.
      •Benzene, a known carcinogen. Sources include tobacco smoke, stored fuels, and vehicle exhaust from attached garages.

      Where do these VOCs come from? Usually from paints and paint thinners, carpeting, caulking, ceiling tiles and adhesives.

      Formaldehyde is one of the few VOCs that are readily measurable.The easiest way to measure formaldehyde is with a passive formaldehyde monitor, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. After keeping the monitor in the home for the amount of time recommended by the company, you send it back to a lab for analysis.

      Test kits can be ordered from various vendors. You can search for “formaldehyde test kit” on the Internet or call a company that does VOC testing.

      Another option is to call an indoor air quality specialist.

      VOCs such as formaldehyde can be filtered from indoor air. But while a high-performance HEPA filter such as IQAir’s HyperHEPA filtration system will remove nearly all of the liquid and solid particles from an indoor environment, a different filtration medium is required to stop gases. IQAir’s V5-Cell technology, for example, eliminates VOCs from the air by using granular activated carbon as well as chemically activated alumina pellets.

      Tomorrow: Tips on how to minimize VOCs at home, and likely signs you may have a VOC problem.

      This online publication is brought to you by The IQAir Group, which develops innovative air quality solutions for indoor environments around the globe. IQAir is the exclusive educational partner of the American Lung Association for the air purifier industry

      http://www.iqair.com/newsroom/2015/introduction-air-purifiers-and-vocs-part-1

      • Fireworks: Dazzling but dirty

        Air Quality News from IQAir

        Dazzling fireworks in celebration of the national holiday Monday night caused the usual sharp, if short-lived, decline in air quality across the nation.

        In some cities, the spike in particle air pollution was enough to affect for hours people with respiratory diseases.

        In Evansville, Ind., for example, fine particle pollution jumped at 9 p.m. to an hourly average of nearly 154 micrograms per cubic meter. The EPA threshold for unhealthy air is 35.

        Fourth of July festivities can impact air quality on more than one front.

        “For some cities, Independence Day traditions of charcoal barbecues and sparklers can cause it to exceed its pollution threshold,” reports the University of Maryland’s Atmospheric Lidar Group.

        The group also notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allows states to discount “exceptional events” such as Independence Day fireworks in reporting air quality statistics to the federal government.

        Cities experiencing significant fireworks-related air-quality issues this year included Louisville, Ky., and Chattanooga, Tenn., among others. In the past, significant air pollution spikes have affected Las Vegas (especially during years of already particulate-heavy air as a result of California wildfires), South Bend, Ind., and others.

        In 2008, Las Vegas particle air pollution jumped to 200 micrograms per cubic meter for a period of time as a results of Independence Day fireworks.

        The explosion of fireworks also releases dangerous metals into the air. The metals are used to produce the brilliant colors of the fireworks. Strontium, magnesium and dioxin-laden copper barium and other toxic metals are among the toxic mix released into the air. You can read up on it here
        http://www.iqair.com/newsroom/2011/fireworks-dazzling-but-dirty

        • Air Resources Board: Revised Methodology of Estimating Premature Deaths

          Air Quality News from IQAir

          At the May 22, 2008 Air Resources Board meeting, staff released a draft report on the revised methodology for estimating premature death associated with long-term exposure to fine airborne particulate matter (Fine PM) in California. This new methodology and results will be discussed in detail at a public workshop on:

          June 25, 2008
          10:00 am to 12:00 noon
          Sierra Hearing Room (2nd floor), Cal/EPA Headquarters
          1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA

          In the draft methodology, staff has incorporated new health information that relates changes in PM2.5 exposures to premature death and developed a new relative risk of a 10% increase in premature death per 10 mg/m3 increase in exposure. Staff also recommended that a range of 7 mg/m3 to 2.5 mg/m3 be used as the lowest level of PM2.5 that can be associated with the increased risk. In the report, staff also updated the ambient air quality database to years 2004-2006. The draft methodology has undergone peer review by a panel formed by the University of California, Berkeley. Details regarding the new methodology can be found in the staff report titled “Methodology for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long-Term Exposures to Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California, Draft Staff Report, May 22, 2008″, which can be downloaded from this website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pm-mort.htm

          http://www.iqair.com/newsroom/2008/air-resources-board-revised-methodology-of-estimating-premature-deaths

      • Air Resources Board: Revised Methodology of Estimating Premature Deaths

        Air Quality News from IQAir

        At the May 22, 2008 Air Resources Board meeting, staff released a draft report on the revised methodology for estimating premature death associated with long-term exposure to fine airborne particulate matter (Fine PM) in California. This new methodology and results will be discussed in detail at a public workshop on:

        June 25, 2008
        10:00 am to 12:00 noon
        Sierra Hearing Room (2nd floor), Cal/EPA Headquarters
        1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA

        In the draft methodology, staff has incorporated new health information that relates changes in PM2.5 exposures to premature death and developed a new relative risk of a 10% increase in premature death per 10 mg/m3 increase in exposure. Staff also recommended that a range of 7 mg/m3 to 2.5 mg/m3 be used as the lowest level of PM2.5 that can be associated with the increased risk. In the report, staff also updated the ambient air quality database to years 2004-2006. The draft methodology has undergone peer review by a panel formed by the University of California, Berkeley. Details regarding the new methodology can be found in the staff report titled “Methodology for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long-Term Exposures to Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California, Draft Staff Report, May 22, 2008″, which can be downloaded from this website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pm-mort.htm

        Paper copies of the staff report are also available and may be requested by email or regular mail at the addresses listed below.

        The workshop will be Webcast at the following link: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/broadcast/?BDO=1

        During the workshop, questions may be emailed to: sierrarm@calepa.ca.gov

        The workshop can also be attended by conference call using the following information:
        Telephone number: 1-877-677-0147
        Passcode: 6256353#
        Group Leader: Hien Tran

        Additional information on activities related to updating the health impacts analysis methodology, can be found at the following website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pm-mort.htm

        Written comments on the draft methodology are being accepted through July 11, 2008 via one of the following methods:
        1. email at htran@arb.ca.gov
        2. fax at (916)323-1045
        3. regular mail addressed to Dr. Hien Tran, California Air Resources Board, Research Division, 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento CA 95812.
        http://www.iqair.com/newsroom/2008/air-resources-board-revised-methodology-of-estimating-premature-deaths

        • Funny pure air is 10-15/3m

        • Osha allows 5000/3m

        • The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years. The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years! Pure natural air is only 10-15/3m and the above says lower it to 7.5/3m and add more so called premature faked deaths…………..Now you see how smoke and mirrors are invented.

        • Some French bloke says:

          a range of 7 mg/m3 to 2.5 mg/m3… used as the lowest level of PM2.5 that can be associated with the increased risk.
          Consider that the Air Resources Board/EPA use mg (milligram) as the unit of measure. The OSHA standard is 5000 ug/m3 and ug stands for “microgram”.
          One microgram = one thousandth of a milligram, so all the figures fall in the same ballpark.

  9. EXCLUSIVE: Nigel Farage says he’ll force through EU referendum after Tories win election

    NIGEL FARAGE believes he will be the power behind the throne after the general election when David Cameron is forced to turn to him to stay in power.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/562511/Nigel-Farage-power-Europe-referendum-Tories-win-general-election

  10. I found a nest of Nazis from all groups……………..

    Air Quality News Archives

    Telltale signs your pet has allergies

    Pets may suffer their entire lives with allergies that are never diagnosed or treated. In fact,…

    Rescued and adopted, Sawyer beats the odds again

    Amelia Larkin’s beloved 2-year-old dog was diagnosed with an acute autoimmune disease. Sawyer, who…

    How to choose allergen-free flowers

    Americans show affection to those we love by giving them flowers — lots of flowers. We spend $8…

    Not all masks are equal

    The popularity of protective breathing masks has grown steadily since the outbreak of severe acute…

    The hidden dangers of scented candles

    Scented candles are a popular way to create a pleasant ambiance at home. Scents such as lavender,…

    IQAir helps 2-year-old survive in NYC

    At only 8 months old, Idan was diagnosed with Hyper IgM, a rare genetic disorder that affects one…

    Can flying make you sick?

    With the holiday season fast approaching, millions of people are preparing for air travel.

    Six Halloween tips for allergy and asthma sufferers

    Being frightened by make-believe ghosts, goblins and ghouls is a big part of the fun on Halloween….

    The truth about e-cigarettes

    Cigarette smoking is still the single largest cause of preventable death in the United States. It…

    How to fight against autumn allergies

    When people think of allergy season, it’s usually spring and early summer that come to mind. But…

    http://www.iqair.com/newsroom/category/airqualitynews

    • beobrigitte says:

      Harley, this made me laugh!!!!

      Telltale signs your pet has allergies

      Pets may suffer their entire lives with allergies that are never diagnosed or treated. In fact,…

      Actually I do have a cat (adopted from a senseless family, so it’s 4th or more generation incest) who has asthma and excema. Furthermore, he can’t have conventional catfood.
      The vet gave me medicine to give on asthma attacks – it’s actually only needed when I go away and the non-smokers (lovely people) come to mind my cats. In my smoky home my cat is fine. Next time my catminders come I will ask them to invite a couple of their smoking friends to visit them – and smoke INSIDE the house. The ashtrays on my tables should be a giveaway!
      I have had this cat for the last 9 years; even the excema is much better than it was. I put this down to slow desensitisation – I clean my home but I use no disinfectant cleaners.
      The catfood allergy problem is harder to tackle – this cat has learned to avoid it. No chance of starting to get my cat used to it. But that’s fine. I can live with that.

      This post did remind me to check the asthma medication in the fridge – it’s 18 month out of date…… I’ll stick with my smoking – IT WORKS!

      • jaxthefirst says:

        “ … even the eczema is much better than it was …”

        As I think I’ve mentioned on here before, I suffered with eczema for years, and tried everything under the sun – conventional medicine, alternative medicine, even injecting myself with a weird (and extraordinarily expensive) anti-allergy mixture for some months – all to absolutely no effect whatsoever. Then, late in life compared to most people, I started smoking tobacco and – hey presto! – within a month the eczema had faded to a few dry patches on my skin, and within two months it had vanished altogether – even the last remnants of scar tissue which are so common in long-term eczema-sufferers had faded. Today, no-one would ever know I’d suffered with it and my skin looks fab. Ironically, the only time I’ve had a flare-up since then was when I very rashly (excuse the pun!) tried to quit smoking some years ago (mainly to keep a friend company who was also trying to quit). The eczema was starting to come back within two weeks; the moment I very wisely started smoking again, it vanished.

  11. Diane Kepus — Finally They Admit the Goal of Climate Change is to Destroy Capitalism

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Kepus/diane123.htm

  12. bacon says:

    this line of reasoning will only lead to mandatory flue vaccinations :)

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s