There can be only one.

Only one ‘main cause’ of anything.

The WHO, bastions of recycling (of their only idea) and with imaginations that would embarrass a lizard, have decided to claim that air pollution is now the number one cause of lung cancer.

It still isn’t quite true but they are closer. However, they cannot make this claim. As one commenter points out –

R A Browne, Liverpool, United Kingdom, – Sorry WHO but the anti smoking lobby have already claimed smoking is the number one killer, you will have to be number two, not so important I’m afraid. Unless of course the anti smoking lobby lied…. naah would never happen.

You cannot claim more than one primary cause so the War on Cars is going to come up against the army of antismoking drones they have already created. Frankenstein’s monster indeed. WHO didn’t see that coming.

They have blamed everything from asthma to zoonoses on smoking now. There is no other cause of anything. Nonsmokers with cancer get turned away from surgeries every day. Smoking causes everything so nothing else can be blamed. The next gravy train is stalled at the station before the avaricious embark. When they let the antismoking gravy train go first, they didn’t realise it would scuttle all the other engines on the way out.

The War on Smokers continues but it has scuppered all the other Wars on Things. Alcohol cannot be the leading cause of throat cancer because smoking already is. Pollution cannot be the leading cause of lung cancer because smoking already is. In fact, any cancer you care to name has been pinned as a smoking-related cancer now. As have most other illnesses and disorders, including dandruff.

We have a new baker at work. Very nice woman, younger than me but not too much younger, we get along well. She has been there about three months. As she left today I was outside for a smoke. She said ‘I didn’t think you were a smoker?’ She is not an antismoker, just a normal nonsmoker. She is not the first by a long way to assume I don’t smoke – and I was once asked by someone who knew I smoked ‘Why don’t you smell of smoke?’ It’s because I wash regularly and don’t stand in fires.

So. We all smell, we all look haggard, we all have yellow fingers (that has more to do with what/how you smoke than how much) and yet in three months, this woman has not identified me as a smoker? I am there six days a week, sometimes seven. And yet I am invisible to nonsmokers unless they see me in the act of smoking. How can this be? Have the drones been lied to? Have they been duped? I don’t think any answer is necessary.

One good thing – their fear of second hand smoke stops them burning down tobacconists.

Oh, and why did lung cancer take off in the 1950s? The answer is here, from a long-ago Captain Ranty post I can’t find now. This is the death that dare not speak its name. The total is tallied in the bottom right of the image and it only goes up to the end of 1998. Two thousand and fifty three nuclear bombs were fired up to fifteen years ago. There have been more since.

And the drones are scared of breathing the smoke from half a gram of burning leaf.

In a statement released after reviewing the literature, the Lyon-based agency said both air pollution and particulate matter – a major component of it – would now be classified among its Group 1 human carcinogens.

That ranks them alongside more than 100 other known cancer-causing substances in IARC’s Group 1, including asbestos, plutonium, silica dust, ultraviolet radiation and tobacco smoke.

They just can’t let it go, can they? Tobacco smoke is as bad as plutonium. The drones will believe it and I will refer them to this article when telling them that smokers glow in the dark.

Sadly, when it comes to letting go of indoctrination, neither can the most wonderul woman in the world. She, too, equates tobacco smoke with nuclear fallout. Even though when most people smoked and there was no fallout… but let’s allow the drones to pretend they are right.

It’s more fun that way.

One day I will kill someone with words. The antismokers bring that  day closer and it will be one of theirs that succumbs.

It won’t be anyone worth keeping.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “There can be only one.

  1. Lucky for them they have doublethink. Look at global warming. The exact opposite of everything they say happens and to them that means they were right all along. The anti car thing has always been a nice earner for these people and now anti smoking has gone as far as it can they will all be jumping on that bandwagon. From now on every news item about cars or roads will have at least one shrieking idiot demanding British proles return to medieval transportation whilst the news reader treats their opinions with total unquestioning reverence.

    Like

  2. Air pollution is the leading cause of lung cancer, says World Health Organisation

    Oh well done the WHO, only 45 years later than a Grammar School kid with an interest in gardening. Mind you it did help that every wall or building around me at the time was covered in a thick layer of black soot.

    “Levels of pollution vary widely between urban and rural areas, but the working group said their findings applied to all regions of the world, and sent a “strong signal” to governments to tackle the problem immediately. ”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10386771/Air-pollution-causes-cancer-WHO-concludes.html

    1953
    “Bessy Braddock, Labour MP for Liverpool Exchange, favoured an environmental explanation, and therefore found the urban–rural divide a barrier to acceptance of the smoking–lung cancer connection.
    ‘In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the country, it is folly to say that it is the main cause of lung cancer.’

    “Dr Guy Scadding, taking part, expressed the views clearly:smoking cannot be called the cause of lung cancer, since non-smokers also get the disease, and moreover the increase in cigarette smoking is not likely to be the only cause of the increase in the lung cancer death rate.

    “The effect of smoking cannot explain the difference in mortality between town and country
    dwellers.”
    http: //fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926030-3.pdf

    1956
    “It is interesting to note the parallel between these figures and those of a recent study of cancer among British immigrants in New Zealand ( Eastcott, 1956)

    Compared with the native born population, British immigrants had an excessive risk of death from cancer of the lung (but no other site),and this excess was sufficiently greater for persons who had lived in Britain until they were 30 years old than for those who migrated at an earlier age.

    Thus emerges from both studies a consistent relationship between duration of exposure to the putatively noxious environment and risk of later death from respiratory disease.”
    http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1058618/?page=4

    1957
    “They manipulated the evidence. Anyone who introduces a corrective factor in his calculations to make the evidence fit a preconceived idea, I do not feel that this is valid scientific evidence.”

    “Only when such a “corrective” coefficient is applied was it possible to obtain proportional correlations between the total exposure to benzpyrene from both cigarette smoking and air pollutants and the relative incidence rates of lung cancer found in the industrialized metropolitan Liverpool area, an intermediary urban-rural region, and the rural area of North Wales”
    http: //tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/503243231-3367.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=91

    The Urban Distribution of Lung Cancer Mortality in England and Wales 1980-1983

    “Lung cancer area mortality rates for the period 1980-1983 in England and Wales followed the pattern observed for previous years, with high rates concentrated in urban districts and low rates in remote rural districts
    http://usj.sagepub.com/content/25/6/497.short

    Well will you just look at that, the clues were there all the time.

    Like

  3. Oh another thing, your space bender. Don’t forget that space is far from empty. Between our solar system and the one you wish to reach will be thousands of stray planets, some small but many far exceeding the mass of Jupiter, as well as all those tiny particles who pop in and out of existence. Passing through this quantum dust is no problem but compressing many light years worth into one space instantly could create a galaxy shaking quantum shock wave. This I believe would be most undesirable.

    Like

      • It would still require space to exist, so I assume you mean outside of known space.
        Have you seen the youtube fotage of giant craft entering and exiting our Sun? No idea if it’s real but there are some who claim our Sun is actually a black hole that draws its energy from an electric universe. What we consider the surface and the corona may actually be massive amounts of something similar to Hawkins radiation eminating from the event horizon. There are some who claim all singularities are the same singularity manifesting in many places and the laws of physics certainly don’t rule this out. If this is the case it may be possible to navigate a craft into any Sun and exit at any other Sun in the universe, maybe even other universes.

        Like

        • Clever thinking, kilter! But stuff in the space that the machine is acting upon will be brushed to one side by a massively powerful anti-gravity component. that acts sideways and pushes stuff out of the path of the ‘beam’.

          Like

          • A generator powerfull enough to overcome the EM field, mass and gravity of a protosun sized object would be so immense it would probably collapse under its own weight, and if it didn’t it would be able to propel entire planets across the universe. I think at this level of engineering we’ve long grown past spaceships.

            Like

    • There is nothing in between because there is no ‘between’. It’s like folding a sheet of paper with two marks on it. The marks touch but if you follow the paper surface, the distance between them is the same as it ever was.

      The shockwave should apply though when the fold is unfolded. I have a use for that too.

      Like

  4. For at least 25 years the medical authorities have (allegedly) hidden statistics that those living around airports or under landing or take off flight paths have a higher incidence of lung cancers and respiratory illnesses than the rest of the population. Of course, there is no connection between the amount of aircraft fuel floating down and these illnesses (a bit of irony there). Apparently, several FOI requests have been refused. Not surprising really as that would put the uber liberal, tree hugging, grow your own sandals brigade in a quandary. How could they stop all this pollution and still take Tarquin and Demelza on their holidays to sunny climes?

    Like

  5. The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

    Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 15 mrem

    Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) – 300 mrem

    Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 300 mrem

    Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

    Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

    Average Annual Total
    361 mrem/year

    Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

    Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!

    or

    Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

    Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

    18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!

    http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm

    http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/Pubs/320-063_bkvsman_fs.pdf

    Like

  6. That ranks them alongside more than 100 other known cancer-causing substances in IARC’s Group 1, including asbestos, plutonium, silica dust, ultraviolet radiation and tobacco smoke

    Its funny the only one I know of proven to cause cancer is PLUTONIUM in the list…………..High doses is required for even that!

    Human lungs ‘brush’ themselves clean of contaminants
    Friday, September 07, 2012 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

    Human lungs contain a tiny network of constantly moving “brushes” that flush contaminants out of the respiratory system, according to research conducted by scientists from the University of North Carolina and published in the journal Science.

    Scientists have known for a long time that the respiratory system protects itself by means of a coating of mucus, which is sticky enough to trap pollutants and keep them from reaching the body’s cells. When needed, the body can expel this mucus through a runny nose or a cough.

    “The air we breathe isn’t exactly clean, and we take in many dangerous elements with every breath,” said lead researcher Michael Rubinstein.

    “We need a mechanism to remove all the junk we breathe in, and the way it’s done is with a very sticky gel, called mucus, that catches these particles and removes them with the help of tiny cilia. The cilia are constantly beating, even while we sleep.

    “In a coordinated fashion, they push mucus, containing foreign objects, out of the lungs, and we either swallow it or spit it out. These cilia even beat for a few hours after we die. If they stopped, we’d be flooded with mucus that provides a fertile breeding ground for bacteria.”

    But until now, researchers have never understood why the mucus does not stick to or even infiltrate the respiratory cells themselves. The foremost theory, known as the “gel-on-liquid model,” posited that an as-yet-undiscovered watery “periciliary” layer kept mucus and cilia separate. The problem with this theory was always that to the best of scientific knowledge, mucus should eventually dissolve into such a watery layer, not remain separate.

    “We can’t have a watery layer separating sticky mucus from our cells because there is an osmotic pressure in the mucus that causes it to expand in water,” Rubinstein says. “So what is really keeping the mucus from sticking to our cells?”

    “Gel-on-brush”
    To get to the bottom of the mystery, the researchers used modern imaging techniques to examine the interior of the lungs. They found a dense network of brush-like structures that sit atop the cilia. These brushes are composed of protective molecules that keep both mucus and contaminants from getting to the respiratory cells beneath. These molecules also function as a second line of defense against viruses or bacteria that manage to penetrate the mucus.

    Stephen Spiro of the British Lung Foundation said the findings could help significantly improve scientific understanding of lung function.

    “Mucus has a complex biological make-up and forms a vital part of the lungs’ defense mechanism,” he said.

    “Research such as this helps our understanding [of] how this system works, and of the complex mechanisms deep within our lungs which protect us from the atmosphere we breathe in.”

    Rubinstein and his fellow researchers noted that their findings may also explain previously mysterious lung disorders from asthma to cystic fibrosis (CF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These diseases may stem from a collapse of the protective brushes.

    “We found that there is a specific condition, below which the brush is healthy and cells are happy,” Rubinstein said. “But above this ideal condition, in diseases like CF or COPD, the brush becomes compressed and actually prevents the normal cilia beating and healthy flow of mucus.”

    In such conditions, the mucus would then stick directly to the lung’s cells.

    “The collapse of this brush is what can lead to immobile mucus and result in infection, inflammation and eventually the destruction of lung tissue and the loss of lung function,” Rubinstein said. “But our new model should guide researchers to develop novel therapies to treat lung diseases and provide them with biomarkers to track the effectiveness of those therapies.”

    http://www.naturalnews.com/037099_lungs_contaminants_respiratory_system.html#ixzz25oTsdUCA

    Like

    • In my undergraduate biology I learnt that the little bags making up the lungs – alveoli – have little hais – cilia – that brush out crud and make it into sputum that old men cough up as gold watches. That was a long time ago so I’m surprised that modern researches are somehow only now discovering this fact about little hairs propelling nascent snot up to be hacked out onto the street.

      Like

  7. Legiron, I think I told you that, following your recommendation, I had passed on a jar of Inulin to one of my kids- aka “Dadz Spaz”- who was diagnosed with IBS? Today he came by to collect his imac that he had kindly lent me (not being a teenager, gay nor American , I don’t have a mac in the house) and he asked me where he could get some more of the inulin cos it is seemingly the only thing that helps! He also asked me to pass on his thanks, his gut felt thanks, to ‘That pro-fess-aAr bloke wot iz online and like wot give you da tip like, innit’ so please, Leg, consider yourself duly ‘thanked’…m8te…
    …innit

    So that makes 2 of my kids whose IBS has been helped by prebioticals.

    *wanders off into the bathroom to rinse the retinal image of chav-speak, like, from his contacts with saline solution…or Wrights carbolic*

    Like

  8. A friend’s Father sadly died of emphysema at 83 last year. My friend was quite puzzled when he recounted his experience at the hospital when every doctor and health professional that dealt with his father constantly asked ‘how many do you smoke a day’ ? Well – none. His father was an accomplished bike racer, that raced into his late 70s nad he never smoked in his entire life. The primary cause of emphysema is smoking, therefore he must have smoked. These people are blinded by the antis smoke screen, as an enzyme deficieny may be the real primary cause.

    Like

  9. I notice in the comments that there are several mentions of Dr Kitty Little
    http: //www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

    Here’s the report of another brave Doctor who was booed and clapped down by anti-tobacco for his efforts.

    CONTROVERSY AT THE SECOND WORLD CONFERENCE on Smoking and Health 1971

    “A fundamental principle” of ACS, said the Society’s public information vice president, Irving Rimer, has always been that “smokers are people and most of them are very nice people and very responsible people”

    His comments, at the close of a session on `Control of Smoking at Places of Work, met little enthusiasm from an audience who two days before had tried to boo and clap down a physician who disagreed with the Royal College of Physicians report on smoking.

    He was trying to read an unscheduled paper on “‘The Cigarette — Enemy or Red Herring?” and it became obvious that he felt cigarettes were being used as a scapegoat for alleged dangers of diesel engine fumes.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/00622190-2193.html

    His paper

    The Cigarette – Enemy or Red Herring?

    By Dr. Geoffrey Myddelton

    “The other theory is that the increase in lung cancer has been due to motor exhaust fumes; which are known to contain carcinogens, especially those of the diesel engine. I estimate roughly that the petrol engine is only about 6 % as dangerous as the diesel, and that if one adds.6 % of the petrol used to the diesel fuel consumed on the road’s in each year, one gets a graph of the huge rise in carcinogenic pollution of the atmosphere in Britain in the last 50 years .

    If the curve of the rise in male lung cancer mortality is plotted beside it, one can see that there is a close relationship between them.
    I believe that this correlation is more than mere coincidence.
    The diesel’ theory needs to be thoroughly investigated’ by a crash programme of research, and the cigarette theory needs to be checked and the figures on which it is based audited by independent statisticians.

    The cigarette theory has been used as a red herring to distract attention from the horrible pollution of the atmosphere by the diesel engine. all we’ve had up till now has been a flood of propaganda and the virtual suppression of all criticism and discussion.

    I appeal to the Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians to have the courage to support a fresh and unbiased investigation.
    Somebody dies of lung cancer in England and Wales every 18 minutes. I believe that a complete mis-diagnosis of the cause of the increase in lung cancer has unfortunately been made, and that suffering humanity has the right to a second opinion.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/00622096-2098.html

    But it was no use appealing to the Royal College of Physicians, as we were informed many years later, the science had already been settled by 1960, our government appears to have got there first.

    2002

    Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air pollution and lung cancer

    Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead.”

    “A few years later, in 1957, the Medical Research Council was planning to issue a statement saying although smoking was a significant cause of lung cancer, up to 30% of cases might be caused by air pollution.

    But the Cabinet committee on cancer of the lung, fearful of another political embarrassment which could be caused by stressing the air pollution connection, asked the MRC to reconsider its statement.

    On 31 May 1957 a modified version was published, which asserted that although it was likely that atmospheric pollution did play a role in lung cancer, it was ‘a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking’.

    A committee was appointed by the Royal College of Physicians in 1959 to consider both the connection between smoking and air pollution, and to produce a report. But when it met on 17 March 1960, it decided to publish a separate report, giving smoking priority.

    ‘It was agreed that the evidence would be of an entirely different quality and nature’, explains Professor Berridge. ‘It was pointed out that individuals could avoid the dangers of smoking but not those of pollution. It was also thought that a section on atmospheric pollution within the main report might detract from the main arguments on smoking and lung cancer’.
    http: //web.archive.org/web/20110703141652/http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html

    Like

  10. Oh, and why did lung cancer take off in the 1950s? The answer is here, from a long-ago Captain Ranty post I can’t find now.

    I seem to recall that the Captain did reproduce this statistic but I’d actually posted it as a comment to this very blog way before then. (original source: Wikipedia and others). 😉

    Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're 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