So how is it that Gots, whose company had " previous connections to the tobacco company, R.J. Reynolds," can be tainted with the lobbyist brush while James Repace, whose entire history and career has been, is, and will always be based on promoting fears of wisps of smoke that cannot even be seen and which he declares a hurricane inadequate to deal with, be seen as a credible expert witness?

I'm actually not surprised at the request for transcripts. When you're planning to carefully dance around the very edges of truth in a trial it's extremely important to have all your words set up precisely to convey the impression you want while not crossing the line into perjury (or whatever they might call it if a lawyer misrepresents things in a closing argument.)

- MJM

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2011), in its 12th Report on Carcinogens, stated: "Environmental tobacco smoke is known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans." The 2010 Surgeon General's Report stated: "Low levels of exposure, including exposures to secondhand tobacco smoke, lead to a rapid and sharp increase in endothelial dysfunction and inflammation, which are implicated in acute cardiovascular
events and thrombosis." In addition, the levels of secondhand smoke infiltrating into Mr. Schuman's townhouse from his neighbors' indoor and outdoor smoking unequivocally created a nuisance, sufficient to degrade the habitability of his home that he has spent tens of thousands of dollars in litigation. Mr. Schuman is far from the only person in this country to complain of unwanted invasion of his home by the toxic and irritating fumes of secondhand smoke.
Hewett et al. (NTR, 2007) randomly sampled 405 Minnesota MFD tenants; 48% said secondhand smoke infiltrated their units, 54% favored a smoke-free building policy.
King et al. (NTR, 2010) surveyed 5,936 New York State MFD residents. 46% said secondhand smoke infiltrated their units. 57% favored a smoke-free building policy. In 40 million US multi-family dwellings; 80% of residents are nonsmokers; (US Census, 2011). If ~50% of nonsmokers’ apartments have smoke intrusion and 35% find it a nuisance, this affects 5.6 million apartments.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2011), in its 12th Report on Carcinogens, stated: "Environmental tobacco smoke is known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans.

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

Abstract
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is derived from cigarette smoldering and active smoker exhalation. Its composition displays broad quantitative differences and redistributions between gas and respirable suspended particulate (RSP) phases when compared with the mainstream smoke (MSS) that smokers puff. This is because of different generation conditions and because ETS is diluted and ages vastly more than MSS. Such differences prevent a direct comparison of MSS and ETS and their biologic activities.

However, even assuming similarities on an equal mass basis, ETS-RSP inhaled doses are estimated to be between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers. Differences in effective gas phase doses are expected to be of similar magnitude. Thus the average person exposed to ETS would retain an annual dose analogous to the active MSS smoking of considerably less than one cigarette dispersed over a 1-year period. By contrast, consistent epidemiologic data indicate that active smoking of some 4–5 cigarettes per day may not be associated with a significantly increased risk of lung cancer. Similar indications also obtain for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Since average doses of ETS to nonsmoking subjects in epidemiologic studies are several thousand times less than this reported intake level, the marginal relative risks of lung cancer and other diseases attributed to ETS in some epidemiologic studies are likely to be statistical artifacts, derived from unaccounted confounders and unavoidable bias

http://www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthia/article/7458828

what does the actual SHS research say (assuming it's not biased, LOL).

Let's take the most recent NIH 11th report on carcinogens.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/pro...
Contains these statements on page 1.
“A meta-analysis found an overall increase in risk of 20% for exposure to environmental tobacco smoke from a spouse who smokes.”
“Three population-based (Brownson et al. 1992, Stockwell et al.1992, Fontham et al. 1994) and one hospital-based (Kabat et al. 1995) case-control studies addressed potential systematic biases.”

When one actually reads the THE 1st paper they refer to.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/82/11/1525
These statements appear.
“In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace (not shown in table). Only lifetime nonsmokers showed a slight increase in risk at the highest quartile of workplace exposure (OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 0.9, 1.7).“(pg.1527)
“Exposure of MORE (my emphasis) than 40 pack-years' duration increased the risk of lung cancer among nonsmokers by approximately 30%.(OR of 1.3).”(pg.1527)
When the spousal data is broken down by exposure level (table 2 & 3 pg.1528) it shows an increased risk ONLY for the highest quartile. For exposures less than 40pack/yrs any risk disappears.
I’ll repeat that.
For exposures less than 40pack/yrs any risk disappears.

And what about Kabat. It’s even worse.
http://www.data-yard.net/science/ets_lung/kab...
Pg 147
“In surveying existing epidemiologic studies of environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in non smokers, several areas of inconsistency should be noted ….”
Other studies including those by Janerich et al and the present study show NO evidence of association with spousal smoking.”

This is the best 'overwhelming' evidence that SHS causes cancer?
And please don't bring up ACS 'fact sheets' or the SG 2006 report cause they all refer back to this and EPA 1993.

Better yet, lets use plain english for a moment.
Two REAL doctors, MD and all, very recent comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Yup the EPA 'cooked the books' on it's research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3826939.stm
“In 2001, he riled the anti-smoking lobby after appearing to downplay the risks from second-hand smoke.
In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, he said: "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me

Lung cancer in smokers has different genetic mutations and looks like a different disease than lung cancer in non-smokers, a team of B.C. Cancer Agency scientists has discovered.

Tumours of those who had never smoked actually had twice as many genetic abnormalities (DNA mutations) as those who were current or former smokers, according to the research presented Tuesday at a conference in Philadelphia of the American Association of Cancer Research. Using gene analysis technologies, the scientists compared tissue samples among comparison groups: 30 individuals who had never smoked and 53 who were either current smokers or former smokers.

Although doctors and scientists have suspected for some time that there were different biological mechanisms underlying lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers, the B.C. study is said to be the first to find whole regions of mutations.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Lung+cancer+smokers+different+from+lung+cancer+nonsmokers+Vancouver+study/3802627/story.html#comments#ixzz16R2HdBX5

FYI: the article in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105, Mainstream and environmental tobacco smoke, was authored by
Gio Batta Gori , and Nathan Mantel, both of whom were among the usual suspects: Tobacco Industry consultants, as can easily be verified by consulting the University of California's Legacy Tobacco Documents database. Nice try, JohnE, but no cigar.

Mr. Repace,
Since you brought up NIEH as one of your sources on the causality of vascular ED perhaps you are unaware of other works such as this:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action;jsessionid=16CAEF820312206AF426693F83851464?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1002286
after all, you specifically blamed outside diesel exhaust for the failure of your instrument to register zero contaminates in a smoke-free courthouse.
Additionally the claim of vascular harm done is drawing dissent even within the epidemiology community:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-study-shows-mcdonalds-meal-causes.html
While you may be oblivious, I'm confident the defendants counsel is not.

Repace's statistics are irrelevant. Estimated annual secondhand smoke fatalities are based on cherry picked studies and loose criteria, mainly showing the effects of decades of indoor secondhand smoke exposure. I know of no study showing similar effects for outdoor shs, let alone the effects of momentary outdoor shs being blown indoors. To avoid feeding phobias, we need to pull back from Repace's statistical microscope and look at reality.

Nice seeing Mr. Repace here, though he never responded to the last Patch discussion once challenged: ( http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/secondhand-smoke-trial-extends-to-5th-day ) Will he do better this time?

1) Mr. Repace, you make the point that ETS is carcinogenic. So is sunshine. In both cases most normal human beings realize that low levels of exposure are not something that rational people worry about in terms of anything that could reasonably be called "harm." Worrying about the demonstrated measurements in Mr. S’s apartment would be the equivalent of worrying about a stray sunbeam sneaking through one’s heavily curtained window.

2) Your quote from the SGR 2010 is interesting, but the "low levels of exposure" note does not represent at ALL the exposure experienced in this case. There is often a deliberate attempt to confuse "low levels of exposure" to ETS with light actual active smoking - an exposure hundreds of times more intense. E.G. in Crystal2010 (“Cigarette smoke causes harmful changes in the lungs even at the lowest levels” - JRCCM 08/20/10) one has to read the entirety of the study to spot the single buried acknowledgement admitting that 28 of the 36 "low exposure" subjects were actually SMOKERS THEMSELVES! Even without such chicanery, the "low levels" are like Otsuka2001 (300% higher than in the middle of the smoking sections of sealed aircraft) or Gianinni2007 (2,000% higher!) (Continued….)

Mr. Repace: back up your stance: Cite actual scientific studies (studies, not advocacy fact sheets or opinions) that show exposure levels experienced in this case lead to the "rapid and sharp increase in endothelial dysfunction and inflammation" you claim.

Aside from cancer and circulatory effects, both of which I believe I dealt with sufficiently above unless you have a reasonable counter to my arguments, you cite the "nuisance" factor of smoke and try to equalize the simple occasional awareness of a scent with the reasonable or legal definitions of nuisance. A dog that barks loudly and constantly from midnight till 6am every night of the week and keeps a dozen neighbors awake is a nuisance. But if you notice a neighbor's dog who barks for a second or two at a passing cat once or twice a month that is hardly the same thing. You deliberately seek to confuse the two experiences as if they were one and the same.

Mr. Repace, I hope you do better in responding this time than you did the last Patch conversation.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Well, Mr. McFadden, since you know so much about secondhand smoke, you should become an expert witness. Although there are some hurdles. The judge has to agree that you're qualified. Dr. Gots has an MD and a PhD, so that qualified him, even though he, like you, has no secondhand smoke publications. My qualifications as listed in my CV at www.repace.com, which include an advanced degree in physics, 90 published scientific papers, 80 of which concern secondhand smoke hazard, exposure, dose, dose-response, risk, and control, also qualified me as an expert. We both testified and were cross-examined by competent attorneys for the defense and the plaintiff. Plus the judge must consider the testimony of the plaintiff, Mr. Schuman, and his fact witness, Ms. Ipolito, who complained about smoke infiltration, Mr. Popovic, the smoker, as well as Ms. Overdurff, Mr. Boswell, and others from the GHI cooperative. If you and the other nicotine addicts who posted on this blog think this case is going to turn on hearsay about some cherry-picked articles by industry moles and others that you read but clearly don't understand, while ignoring the vast body of literature by hundreds of scientists and the authoritative reports of federal agencies indicting secondhand smoke as toxic air pollution, you're welcome to your pipe dreams. The judge has heard the evidence of the experts and the witnesses, and he will decide based upon the totality and credibility of the information before him.

Reality check question: The American Cancer Society says SHS kills 46,000 annually. What would the death toll be if they were Schuman clones exposed only to his amount of infiltration exposure?

First thing there are no deaths from SHS/ETS! Its a fallacy,a lie! Created from jumbling invented risk factors out of sterile air! There are no more airborne risks in shumans home than in the courtroom and thats what makes Mr.Repace look so Insane by trying to defend the indefensible! Now the Judge whether he is on their side or not before all the shenannigans went down that brought this case to court must now try and figure out a way to make this case not look like a frivilous lawsuit as we all know it was to start with. I truly believe Mr.Repace was behind this suit to begin with possibly even making a deal with the plaintiff prior to suit being brought,of course thats only my opinion. That opinion is educated by the low handed ways in which tobacco control has operated thru the years,as in suing OSHA and then that being dropped for fear of losing their precious junk scientific fraud of SHS/ETS all together! This judge is no doubt wishing he had thrown this case out! Now he grants a 6 week wait while plaintiffs lawyers try and create a new angle out of JUNK SCIENCE! The facts are,the plaintiff suffered no more irritants than the people sitting in the court room!

I assume now the plaintiff and any other citizen should sue mother nature for releasing pollen and dust into our precious clean air,oh and even those diesel engine exhaust fumes down by the courthouse which must also be in the air in shumans home! Lmao. Insanity is green and it drives stupidity to a new level.
A level where fear is created in a sect of the population easily manipulated by government dogma thats driven by a political entity set out to create the perfect world. A world of non-existant threats that if were true none of us would even be here! As genetics would never have developed us to ward off these microscopic levels and we would all still be a single cell creature at the bottom of the sea!

Despite the monitor having previously recorded the same amount of possible carcinogenic particulates in the air in the smoke-free courthouse as it had in Schuman’s unit, Repace stuck with his claim. He said the air in the courthouse may have been polluted by a number of diesel buses operating outside.

Quick, Mr Schuman, get out of the courthouse NOW!!! Repace claims it's been contaminated by outside air. I would ask Mr Repace if he was trying to elude that a few diesel busses are equal to a few cigs smoked outside invading a home!

It simply makes the case even more LUDICROUS!

Jimmy, you make some interesting claims, albeit senseless – as usual. You obviously missed the comments made to this article that highlight the ideological/financial corruption of many antismoking groups, including the US Surgeon-General and yourself:
http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/secondhand-smoke-trial-moves-to-september

In addition to your usual delusional and misleading claims, this time you indicate “the levels of secondhand smoke infiltrating into Mr. Schuman’s townhouse from his neighbor’s indoor and outdoor smoking unequivocally created a nuisance, sufficient to degrade the habitability of his home…”

Jimbo, firstly you did not measure SHS. You measured (uncorroborated) low-level particulates and trace-level nicotine – possible remnants of SHS. Both are not peculiar to tobacco smoke. Secondly, such infinitesimal quantities are not associated with hazard. Even though you quote the NIEHS and the SG regarding “hazard”, you obviously know that “hazard” has no basis. So, you immediately revert to trace levels of remnants of possible SHS as not only a “nuisance” but a “nuisance” that “degrades the habitability of his home”. Jimmy, have you lost all sensibility? There is a point where claims of “nuisance” and “victimhood” enter the sphere of exaggeration, fanaticism, extremism, and neurosis. And that point has well been crossed by this nonsensical lawsuit and its drummed-up evidence of “harm” and “nuisance”.

2.
There have been so many baseless, inflammatory claims made about tobacco smoke, many by so-called “authorities” and “experts” that are demonstrably ideologically/financially compromised, that there is now a growing number of nonsmokers who have been manipulated into irrational belief, fear and bigotry. And, Jimmy, you’ve been one of those naughty people that have “helped” to manipulate people into mental dysfunction. There is nothing in the historical record of people complaining/terrified about tobacco smoke. It is a recent phenomenon that has been produced by agenda-driven, incessant, inflammatory propaganda. Created is the environmental somatization syndrome (or idiopathic environmental intolerance) amongst a growing number of nonsmokers.

Notwithstanding evidence of actual hazard or nuisance, Jimbo ultimately reverts to popularism: “46% said secondhand smoke infiltrated their units. 57% favored a smoke-free building policy”. The question, Jimbo, is why? Again, this is a recent phenomenon produced by long-term, incessant, baseless, inflammatory antismoking propaganda. Jimbo, you helped to produce this mental dysfunction which you then want to use as “evidence” for instituting smoke-free policies. For heaven’s sake!

3.
There was also Schuman’s claim of a cluster of “symptoms”. These have not been corroborated. Yet, Munzer, who did not medically examine the witness, attributed these “symptoms” to SHS exposure. Schuman is either lying about his “symptoms” or lying about their attribution. The symptoms spoken of, if they are actual, are classical anxiety reactions (i.e., psychogenic). Munzer is not qualified in psychogenic effects and both Munzer and Repace are long-time antismoking activists chasing the smokefree “utopia”. For Repace to then claim that Gots has tobacco industry “connections” that somehow “taint” his testimony – a standard antismoking “ad hominem” tactic, is extraordinarily perverse.

And, if this antismoking-fiasco-of-a-case to this point wasn’t sufficient, the plaintiff requested an extension!!!

1.
Jimbo, your pompous blather-fest extolling your “expertise”, although of some entertainment value, is hardly compelling. In the current antismoking fervor, supported by government, there is much funding available for agenda-driven, trash “research”. In this you seem to be quite expert.

What is very clear from your comment is your rabid antismoking stance, referring to anyone that dare question your self-serving drivel as “nicotine addicts” or “[tobacco] industry moles”. Jimmy, you should be more respectful. Much of your funding comes from FAMRI which is financed by money extorted (MSA) from smokers. It is the so-called “nicotine addicts” that have been forced to finance your fifth-rate “research” career.

Jimbo, while you spout such terms as “toxic air pollution”, you obviously have no psychological insight. You seem to be unaware that thought can be toxic: The promotion of irrational belief, fear and bigotry is toxic.

2.
Watch out, Jimmy. There are more and more that are becoming familiar with antismoking shenanigans. In future lawsuits that your ilk may bring, don’t be surprised to see a psychiatrist/psychologist present to provide testimony on psychogenic effects. There are even tests that can be conducted that can determine whether physical symptoms, if there are any, are psychologically produced or not.

There is more than ample evidence from the 400-year history of antismoking that the rabid antismoking mentality is a mental disorder. Whenever it has been set loose on society, it has produced psychological and social havoc/upheaval.

Mr. Repace, it's good to see you returned. Let me start with the most important point first. I had asked you to back up your stance. Specifically I asked you to "Cite actual scientific studies (studies, not advocacy fact sheets or opinions) that show exposure levels experienced in this case lead to the 'rapid and sharp increase in endothelial dysfunction and inflammation' you claim."

You did not do so, despite your claimed qualifications and expertise that should have made it quite easy to do so if indeed you were telling the truth. I think that to uphold your credibility you *do* need to address the question directly.

My guess, based upon previous experience with you, is that you will probably either not respond, or will respond with something else along the lines of "I'm The Big Expert And You Are A Nicotine Junkie!"

(Continued....)

Your suggestion that I become an expert witness is a good one, although as you point out I don't have a Masters degree in Physics from 40 years ago. My experience in publishing is limited to my book, although there is an interesting story behind my 2005 effort to publish a study that has now been corroborated by the results of the 2009 NBER/Stanford research, the recent 74 cities study, and the just published 7 States study. To read about that research and its treatment by the BMJ et al see the American Council of Science and Health article at:

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsid.990/news_detail.asp

Of course if I became an expert witness, the nature of my testimonies would probably result in my being called up to testify on behalf of the tobacco industry or its “allies” and then you could just lump me in with those you refer to as "tobacco industry moles."

It would be a lot easier to brush my challenge off then, wouldn't it? Without that excuse though, I think you're left solidly holding the bag: you need to cite the research to back up your claim or have it exposed in public as baseless.

Looking forward to your response and citations Mr. Repace.

- MJM

In the Schuman v. GHI & Popovic case, I wrote 3 reports totaling 56 single-spaced manuscript pages, presented a slide show totaling 33 slides, and spent 33 hours in court, many of those under direct and cross examination, during which the issues of the case were discussed at great length. I have no intention of revisiting that in a blog. The transcript of this trial, which lasted for 6 days will be hundreds of pages long, and costs $4000. if you're interested in the details, you can buy it. Or you can wait for Judge Northrup's decision on November 3rd, which will be a public document. For those readers who are genuinely interested the the science of secondhand smoke infiltration in multifamily dwellings, I suggest you attend a symposium that I'm co-chairing on the subject at the Annual Conference of the International Society for Exposure Science next month in Baltimore, MD.
James Repace
Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor
Department of Public Health & Community Medicine
Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
& Repace Associates, Inc., Secondhand Smoke Consultants

The transcript costs $4,000? Hmm.... maybe I *should* take up expert witnessing.

I gather then, that despite your expertise, and despite the centrality of the claim of harm through things like endothelial dysfunction at the measured levels you actually ARE unable to produce even a single study to back the claim up? After all, I'm not quite asking for hundreds of pages of transcripts... just a couple of citations ... perhaps two lines out of your 56 single spaced manuscript pages which, at 30 lines per page, would literally be just about 1/1,000th of your manuscript. Somehow I don't feel that that's an unreasonable request given your participation here. I'm certainly quite willing to back up my claims.... and I don't even hire myself out as an expert!

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Not an assistant professor, but certainly someone who stands behind what I say.

Michael McFadden: God bless you, and keep after the awful junk science merchants. They make a sick living out of propagating mindless fear.

I have exactly as much respect for James Repace and his "peers" as I have for the "peers" of oh-so "scientific" eugenics who propagated mindless fear, social division, evil legislation, and worldwide misery in my parents' day.

My wish for Repace and his peers would be that living in a world with Lucky Strikes or city buses in it really was as fatal -- just for them -- as they declare it to be for all of us. For then we would be rid of mad and hateful junk scientists: as we should have been long ago.

I feel a new book comming on '' Merchants of Ficticous Death''

The latest JUNK SCIENCE comes from none other than Dr.Oz..........arsenic in apple juice! But then we have always known apples had arsenic in them,yet weve always eaten them!

Lets look at littlewood and fennels OSHA arsenic computation!

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 .

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.

(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Does "1,771 Casino Employees in PA Will Die from Secondhand-Smoke Illnesses, New PACT Study Says" ring a bell? That was an Oct. 15, 2007 press release for research done by the plaintiff’s expert, J.R. It was accompanied by great Internet press release and news fanfare. Three days later there was a low-key Internet notice of J.R.'s research with "1,771" revised to "300" with no mention of or request to undo the previous highly publicized wrong information. This behavior shows how anti-secondhand smoke activists can shape beliefs in the court of public opinion. To assure justice in this case, I hope whoever renders a verdict is able to see at least three days into the future.

If anyone can remember prohibition,we are reliving history. Remember we also had a great depression !

Here is my reply to the Tobacco Trolls:

59. Baker F, Dye JT, Stuart R, Ainsworth MA, Crammer C, Thun M, Hoffmann D, Repace J, Henningfield J, Slade J, Pinney J, Shanks T, Burns B, Connally G, Shopland D. Cigar smoking health risks: state of the science. JAMA 284:735-740 (2000).

61. Mannino DM, Moorman JE, Kingsley B, Rose D, and Repace J. Health effects related to environmental tobacco smoke exposure in children in the United States. Data from the Third National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine 155:36-41 (2001).

62. Muggli ME, Forster JL, Hurt RD, and Repace JL. The smoke you don’t see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies. American Journal of Public Health, 91: 1419-1423 (2001).

63. Mannino DM, Caraballo R, Benowitz N, and Repace J. Predictors of cotinine levels in US children - data from the third national health and nutrition examination survey. Chest 120:718-724 (2001).

64. Repace JL. Effects of passive smoking on coronary circulation. (letter) JAMA. 287 #3, 316-317, January 16, 2002.

65. Mannino DM, Albalak R, Grosse S, Repace J. Second-hand smoke exposure and blood lead levels in U.S. children. Epidemiology 14: 719-727 (2003).

66. Repace JL. Flying the Smoky Skies: Secondhand Smoke Exposure of Flight Attendants. Tobacco Control 13(Suppl 1):i8-i19 (2004).

67. Muggli ME, Forster JL, Hurt RD, and Repace JL. The Tobacco Industry’s Political Efforts to Derail the EPA Report on ETS. Am J Prev Med 26(2):167–177 (2004).

68. Repace JL. Respirable Particles and Carcinogens in the Air of Delaware Hospitality Venues Before and After a Smoking Ban. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46:887-905 (2004).

69. Travers MJ, KM Cummings, A Hyland, J Repace, S Babb, T Pechacek, PhD, R Caraballo. Indoor Air Quality in Hospitality Venues Before and After Implementation of a Clean Indoor Air Law — Western New York, 2003. MMWR Vol. 53 / No. 44 1038-104, November 12, 2004.

70. Hyde JN, Brugge D, Repace J, Rand W. Assessment of sources of second hand smoke exposure in a putatively non-exposed population. Archives of Environmental Health, 59: 553-557 (2004).

71. Repace JL. Controlling Tobacco Smoke Pollution. Technical Feature, ASHRAE IAQ Applications: 6, #3, 11-15 (2005).

72. Mulcahy M, Evans DS, Hammond SK, Repace JL and Byrne M. Secondhand smoke exposure and risk following the Irish smoking ban: an assessment of salivary cotinine concentrations in hotel workers and air nicotine levels in bars. Tobacco Control 14: 384-388 (2005).

74. Repace JL, Al-Delaimy WK, Bernert JT. Correlating Atmospheric and Biological Markers in Studies of Secondhand Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Dose in Children and Adults. JOEM 48: 181-194 (2006).

75. Leavell NR, Muggli ME, Hurt RD, and Repace JL. Blowing Smoke – British American Tobacco's Air Filtration Scheme and the UK Public Places Charter on Smoking. BMJ 332;227-229 (2006).

76. Hedley AJ, McGhee SM, Repace JL, Wong L-C, Yu YSM, Wong T-W, Lam T-H.
Risks for heart disease and lung cancer from passive smoking by workers in the catering industry. Toxicological Sciences 90(2), 539–548 (2006).

77. Repace JL. and Johnson KC. Can Displacement Ventilation Control Secondhand ETS? Technical Feature, ASHRAE IAQ Applications, 7: 1-6 (Fall, 2006).

79. Repace J, Hughes E, and Benowitz N. Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Air Pollution Assessed from Bar Patrons’ Urine Cotinine. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 8: 701-711 (2006).

80. Repace JL, Hyde JN, Brugge D. Air Pollution in Boston Bars Before and After a Smoking Ban. Open Acess, on-line journal: <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/266>;, BMC Public Health 2006, 6:266 (27 Oct 2006).

81. Repace JL. Exposure to Secondhand Smoke. Chapter 9, In: Exposure Analysis, W Ott, A Steinemann, and L Wallace, Eds. CRC Press (2007).

82. Bauer U, Juster H, Hyland A, Farrelly M, Engelen M, Weitzenkamp D, Repace J, Babb, S. Reduced Secondhand Smoke Exposure After Implementation of a Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban — New York, June 26, 2003–June 30, 2004, MMWR 56, No. 28: 705-706 (2007).

84. Lee, K., Hahn, E.J., Okoli, C.T.C., Repace, J., Troutman, A. Differential impact of smoke-free laws on indoor air quality. Journal of Environmental Health 70:24-70 (2008).

85. Repace JL. Benefits of smoke-free regulations in outdoor settings: beaches, golf courses, parks, patios, and in motor vehicles. William Mitchell Law Review 34(4):1621-1638 (2008).

86. Repace JL. Secondhand Smoke in Pennsylvania Casinos: A Study of Nonsmokers’ Exposure, Dose, and Risk. American Journal of Public Health 99: 1478–1485 (2009).

87. Jiang RT, Cheng K-C, Acevedo-Bolton V, Klepeis NE, Repace JL, Ott WR, and Hildemann LM. Measurement of Fine Particles and Smoking Activity in a Statewide Survey of 36 California Indian Casinos. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology: 21, 31-41 (2010) doi:10.1038/jes.2009.75. online, open access.

88. Repace JL, Jiang RT, Cheng K-C, Acevedo-Bolton V, Klepeis NE, Ott WR, and Hildemann LM. Fine Particle and Secondhand Smoke Air Pollution Exposures and Risks Inside 66 US Casinos. Environmental Research 111 (2011) 473–484.

89. Lu SQ, Fielding R, Hedley AJ, Wong L-C, Lai HK, Wong CM, Repace JL, McGhee SM. Secondhand Smoke (SHS) Exposures: Workplace Exposures, Related Perceptions of SHS Risk, and Reactions to Smoking in Catering Workers in Smoking and Non-smoking Premises. Nicotine & Tobacco Research Nicotine & Tobacco Research (2011) 13 (5): 344-352.

90. Lai HK, Hedley AJ, Repace JL, So C, Lu QY, McGhee SM, Fielding R. Lung function and exposure to workplace secondhand smoke during exemptions from smoking ban legislation - an exposure response relationship based on indoor PM2.5 and urinary cotinine levels. Thorax 66:615-623 (2011). Published Online First: 6 May 2011.

Here is my reply to the junk scientist of the day:

http://dnapatents.georgetown.edu/resources/Bulletin10A.pdf

Jimmy junk science is junk science. You should be getting your name off those papers not promoting them. Not one death or disease has been assigned to tobacco,much less shs/ets! Jimmy its time to beg forgiveness of the people,thebiglie is over!

This trial isn't about secondhand smoke, as much as the plaintiffs (and media) would like to shift the argument in that direction. This is a contract dispute. It's about responsibility. GHI was under no contractual obligation to solve this problem, period. Smoking is not an illegal act, and as offended as the neigbors might have been, it was their responsibility to resolve the issue between themselves. This was NEVER GHI's problem, though they clearly went out of their way to help these people. Whether you like smoking or not, it is not a violation of the GHI agreement. If the plaintiff didn't like the rules, he shouldn't have signed the contract. And he certainly should not be wasting everyone's time and money by trying to change the agreement after-the-fact, through court action.

Matthew you miss the big picture,this trial is big especially for the junk science pushers like Mr. Repace. It is invaluable for the tobacco control advocates to get some legal presidence for their movement and especially for James shs/ets business. The tobacco control agenda financed by big pharma and the federal government thru grants is winding down. As the 2012 election gets closer and obamas administration comming to an end,so to does the power behind the smoking bans from the federal level. You reall have no idea how deep this prohibitional anti-tobacco movement is in the world and in this country. The WHO world health orginizations anti-tobacco treaty thru the united nations where countries were forced to sign on or lose world bank and IMF loans for their ailing countries.It doesnt sop there either,its a NANNY STATE movement pushing the progressives new social order!

Its what we have been fighting for years and some even decades!

They know there movements failed and 100s of billions of dollars wasted thru the decades on JUNK SCIENCES!

I suggest you read your contract, Mr. Byrd -- it explicitly says that no resident has the right to create a nuisance for a neighbor. GHI agreed that secondhand smoke exposure is hazardous to nonsmokers, and wrote a letter to the smoker stating that explicitly, although they did not disclose this fact to Mr. Schuman until the discovery phase of the litigation. So they were quite disingenuous. The officious bureaucrats in charge of the co-op sought to avoid responsibility for solving the problem by denying Mr. Schuman a formal hearing, and forcing him to go to court, to suck it up, or to move. Mr. Schuman and his nonsmoking neighbor on the other side of the smoker are both experienced attorneys. They both experience the nuisance, they both read the contract, and both agreed that if the board denied them a hearing that those were the only 3 options. Mr. Schuman chose to go to court as a last resort.

I would like to thank Mr. Repace for responding to my request for a couple of citations backing up claims that such things as endothelial dysfunction. He only needed to cite one or two, but he went to the time and trouble to cut and paste 28 citations in answer to my request that he "Cite actual scientific studies (studies, not advocacy fact sheets or opinions) that show exposure levels experienced in this case lead to the 'rapid and sharp increase in endothelial dysfunction and inflammation' "

Unfortunately, despite the effort he put into this, the 28 citations seem almost to just be a random grab bag. What do such things as bar patron's urine or the "Perceptions of SHS Risk" by workers have to do with endothelial dysfunction (ED in future refs) in the plaintiff? Still, I'll briefly examine each of his 28 offers of evidence in order. (Skipped #s were skipped by Mr. Repace)

59: Baker: "Cigar smoking health risks"
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

61: Mannino: "Health effects ... in children..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.
(Although it IS interesting that your research showed that the healthiest children were the ones who had the middle 33% level of ETS exposure rather than the lowest 33% for five of the six health measures you took. Moderate exposures, by your research, would seem to be good for children.)

(continued....)

62: Muggli: "...uncovering tobacco industry strategies..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

63: Mannino: "Predictors of cotinine levels in US children..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

64: Repace: "Effects of passive smoking on coronary circulation"
Ahh! Finally! Not a study however, just a letter. Still... let's see! OK... Mr. Repace this letter simply discusses Otsuka's research where subjects were forced to sit in gas chamber conditions at ETS levels roughly 400% of what generally existed in the middle of the smoking sections on pressurized jet aircraft in the 1980s. Somehow I doubt that those levels have ANYTHING to do with the ETS levels in the plaintiff's case. If I am incorrect you are welcome to show why... but I sincerely doubt I am incorrect.

65: Mannino: "(ETS) and blood lead levels in US children"
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

66: Repace: "Flying the Smoky Skies..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.
(I'm surprised you listed this since it's your own work and in your own words it measured levels that "exceeded SHS irritation thresholds by 10 to 100 times." What do such levels have to do with the plaintiff's apartment, and what does this citation have to do with ED in the first place?)

(continued...)

67: Muggli: "The Tobacco Industry's Political Efforts..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

68: Repace: "(ETS measurements in) Delaware Hospitality Venues..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

69: Travers: "(ETS measurements in) Hospitality Venues..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

70: Hyde: "...sources of (ETS)..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

71: Repace: [ASHRAE article on] "Controlling Tobacco Smoke Pollution"
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.
(Although your calcs requiring indoor "tornados" of over 120,000 air changes/hr are interesting.)

72: Mulcahy: "(ETS) exposure and risk following the Irish smoking ban..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

74: Repace: "…Markers in Studies of (ETS) Exposure and Dose..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

75: Leavell: "...British American Tobacco's Air Filtration Scheme..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

76: Hedley: "Risks … by (catering) workers…"
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

(continued...)

77: Repace: "Can displacement ventilation control (ETS)?"
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

79: Repace: "... Bar Patrons' Urine..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels. (Although I don't envy you the task of collecting all the urine for these studies...)

80: Repace: "(ETS) in Boston Bars..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

81: Repace: "Exposure to (ETS)"
This is a book chapter, not a study. If there’s anything about ED at the plaintiff's ETS levels I'll happily read it..

82: Bauer: "Reduced (ETS) After (NY's ban)"
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

84: Lee:"Differential impact of (ban laws) on indoor air..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

85: Repace: "Benefits of (bans) in outdoor(s)..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

86: Repace: "(ETS) in PA Casinos"
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

87: Jiang:"Measurement of (ETS in) Casinos"
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels

88: Repace: "(ETS) Inside 66 US Casinos"
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.
(continued...)

89: Lu: "Related Perceptions of SHS Risk ... in Catering Workers ..."
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

90: Lai: "Lung function and (workplace ETS exposure) ... based on indoor PM2.5 and (urine again...)
Mr. Repace, this has NOTHING to do with ED at anything like the plaintiff's ETS levels.

Mr. Repace, I appreciate the effort you went to, and I admire the fact that every single one of your 28 references refers back to yourself as either the author or one of the sub-authors, but not a single one of them addresses the VERY specific request I made of you to "Cite actual scientific studies (studies, not advocacy fact sheets or opinions) that show exposure levels experienced in this case lead to the 'rapid and sharp increase in endothelial dysfunction and inflammation' "

However, given the great effort you went to in TRYING to back that up, I would say you have clearly demonstrated that it simply can NOT be backed up. Did you actually make a claim of this sort of threat in your court testimony? (I understand you have a copy of what you said, correct?) If you DID mistakenly make such a claim, have you sent the judge a notice correcting that mistaken testimony? Or did you simply cite the wrong citations here by mistake?

As far as I can tell, after carefully examining as possible each of the 28 citations you made, you have not stood behind your statement. Can you correct that?

- MJM

GHI agreed that secondhand smoke exposure is hazardous to nonsmokers, and wrote a letter to the smoker stating that explicitly, although they did not disclose this fact to Mr. Schuman until the discovery phase of the litigation.............

Why would GHI admit something like that,when its been proven an absolute hoax! The folks in smoke choked chambers were suffering from symptons of smoke inhalation at those levels and the same thing occurs to any living thing exposed to any smoke at those extreme levels. The thing nobody mentions is those supposed changes disapear within 30 minutes or so after that exposure is gone.They have to quickly draw blood to even get a change as it fixes itself just that quick!

Thats their supposed evidence for a heart disease connection to shs/ets!

Mr.Repace lobs the board with his junk science that he claims makes him a professional on shs/ets!

OSHA is in charge of indoor air heres there official policy:

In 1991 NIOSH { OSHA' research group} Looked into ETS although at the time they recommended reducing ETS exposure they found the studies lacking.

NIOSH recognizes that these recent epidemiological studies have several shortcomings: lack of objective measures for charachterizing and quantifying exposures,failures to adjust for all confounding variables,potential misclassification of ex-smokers as non-smokers,unavailability of comparison groups that have not been exposed to ETS, and low statistical power.

Research is needed to investigate the following issues:

1. More acurate quantification of the increased risk of lung cancer associated with ETS exposure,including determination of other contributing factors[e.g.,occupational exposures]that may accentuate the risk.

2.Determination of the concentration and distributuion of ETS components in the workplace to help quantify the risk for the U.S. working population.

a.The association of ETS exposure with cancer other than lung cancer
b.The relationship between ETS exposure and cardiovascular disease
c.The relationship between ETS exposure and nonmalignant resporatory diseases such asthma,bronchitis and emphysema, and
the effects of ETS on lung function and respiratory systems
c. Possible mechanisms of ETS damage to the cardiovascular system,such as platelet aggravation,increased COHb leading tooxygen depravation,or damage to endothelium
d.Effects of workplace smoking restrictions on the ETS exposure of nonsmokersand ETS-related health effects in nonsmokers

After ten years of no conclusive research and lack of studies that didn't eliminate the bias OSHA decided that the studies did not have substance and here is there present policy.

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

The "30 minute" experiments that the statement is based on have nothing at all to do with the exposures one might get on a park bench sitting next to a smoker or even with what one would normally get in any decently ventilated bar or restaurant.

The exposures in the supportive experiments involve smoke concentrations at levels of 400% to 2,000% as high as what used to be measured in the middle of the smoking sections of pressurized airplanes!! (Which used to be held up as one of the worst smoking environments.)

The experiments take nonsmokers who avoid smoke in all their daily home, social, and working life, force them to sign papers

acknowledging the "danger" they are about to be put in, and then sealing them in smoke-choked chambers that nonsmokers would run screaming from if they weren't being paid $100 to endure 30 minutes for science. . . . When the poor souls come stumbling out blood test measurement show small changes that could theoretically relate to heart disease.

The changes are like ones other experimenters find when they feed subjects a bowl of corn flakes and milk.... but in the kooky world of antismoking research those results get twisted into representing an unusual and deadly threat.

And remember: they only get those results in EXTREME conditions, nothing like normal restaurant/park or even decent bar/casino exposures. . . . The Antismokers today are lying just like Big Tobacco did back in the 1950s.
Antismoking extremism needs to be put to rest. Smoking is unhealthy like a lot of other things, but the smoke from burning smokers at the stake smells a lot worse than Newports. . . .

Cornflakes, White Bread Could Boost Heart Risk
'High-glycemic' carbs like these hamper blood vessel function, study shows.

THURSDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- Eating a diet rich in carbohydrates that boost blood sugar levels -- foods such as cornflakes or white bread -- may hamper the functioning of your blood vessels and raise your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, a new study suggests.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/news....

Antismokers have had free, unquestioned, government-supported rein for the last 30 years. They have been allowed to peddle all manner of baseless, inflammatory propaganda, all working to the Godber/WHO Blueprint ( http://www.rampant-antismoking.com )

Schuman and Ipolito sound as though they have lapped-up the propaganda, believing tobacco smoke to be “bio-weapon-like”. So they approached the experts in the promotion of neurosis – Jimmy Rapacious… er… sorry, Repace and Alf Munzer. Jimmy and Alf, fresh from their Las Vegas comedy routine, fully expected to saunter into the courtroom and effortlessly and without question convince the judge that uncorroborated measurements of trace levels of two markers of, but not peculiar to, SHS “caused” a cluster of uncorroborated symptoms in Schuman and that “degraded the habitability of his dwelling”. Puhhh-leeeez!!!

It is antismoking fanaticism masquerading as “scientific” that has produced the nuisance of neurosis. How does one protect against the nuisance of neurosis? How does Popovic and GHI protect themselves against the nuisance of erratic, irrational claims and demands made by Schuman and promoted/reinforced by so-called [agenda-driven] “experts” such as Jimmy and Alf? I trust Judge Northrop understands what is at stake here.

It is of interest to inquire: what has motivated the often hysterical comments of the Patch Blog on the Schuman case? Mr. McFadden, for example, is one of more than a dozen crackpot columnists for the anti-public health organization FORCES. “FORCES columnists offer news and perspectives on such issues as smoking and public policy, smoking and science, and the increasingly evident slippery slope that is leading to tobacco prohibition. They also … chart the course of an authoritarian and censorious political and bureaucratic elite that uses state-of-the-art propaganda techniques, corporate handouts and tax dollars to woo the public towards … utopian illusions about health and safety in exchange for the privacy and freedom of both mind and body.” <http://www.forces.org/Forces_Articles/>;.

Many of FORCES tactics revolve around disproving or "debunking" much of the scientific evidence surrounding smoking, as well as constantly linking anti-tobacco activists either to fascism/Nazism/communism or to some sort of criminal conspiracy against smokers and those people sympathetic towards FORCES' causes.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=shc37d00. Many examples of these tactics are found throughout the FORCES Web sites and are contained in the University of California Legacy Library collection. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/search/basic;jsessionid=24A09DB461CB4045326E24502843F588.tobacco03?fd=0&q=forces

James perhaps this will lend a lil historical perspective on your prohibitional movement:

Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework)

Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid history. The three antismoking crusades of the last century have been eugenics-driven. In eugenics, health is erroneously reduced to an entirely biological phenomenon and where a self-installed elite attempt to engineer/breed a “better” human herd. In addition to a genetic aspect, eugenics views tobacco and alcohol as racial poisons needing to be eradicated (negative eugenics). Antismoking was rife in early-1900s USA. Smoking and tobacco sales were banned in quite a number of American states.
http://www.americanheritage.com/artic....

Dillow (1981) notes that the bulk of antismoking claims were fraudulent and inflammatory. Dillow fails to note that the antismoking crusade of the early-1900s USA was eugenics-driven: Eugenics was mainstream in the USA at this time. At the turn of the last century, eugenics was mainstream in the USA, the UK, some European countries, and a number of Scandinavian countries. The USA appears to be the most prominent. The mega-wealthy in the USA (e.g., Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Kellogg) were supporters and funders of eugenics (and antismoking, anti-alcohol) – and still are. Rockefeller and Ford were also prominent supporters of Nazi eugenics. (Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework). Rockefeller and Ford had trade agreements with the Nazis through the 1930s

Lets not forget hitler and his rabid anti-tobacco movement since you bring it up!

Hitler was a Leftist
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

This great crusade, propagated through a remarkable network of lectures, re-education programs and congresses, was backed up by the medical and health establishment for the sake of "science." Or at least a certain type of junk science, one in which objective research and the scientific method was subordinated to, and bastardized for the sake of, a greater political program. Thus, it was commonly touted by scientists and racial hygienists that smoking caused "spontaneous abortions": a clearly demonstrable fallacy, but one requiring official promotion in order to ensure a high birth rate for Aryan women. (Source: Anti-tobacco Gestapo: past and present.

You should go read it James and any other rabid anti-smoking prohibitionist. It tells the historical story of your forebearers!

James perhaps you should tell the readers just how deeply rooted the legacy folks are involved in anti-tobacco!

Legacy is the stand all when it comes to anti-tobacco groups. They even tried to steal 200 million dollars thru the ACS from the state of ohio. This all happened when the state took the money from the smokefree groups in ohio and repealed their state charter as a non-profit group. The money was returned after the courts said it belonged to the state as thats where it originated!

Apparently Mr. Schuman is not the only area resident concerned about this issue:

<http://www.gazette.net/article/20110922/OPINION/709229992/-1/snub-out-secondhand-smoke-in-multifamily-dwellings&template=gazette>;

1.
Jimmy, it’s good to see you’re still quasi-present. I’ll try not to tax your cognitive capacity….. you being an “expert” and all [giggle].

Jimbo, the current antismoking fanatics, your “expertship” [giggle] included, are very much like their predecessors. They typically have no grasp of history, or of science, or of human nature, least of all their own considerable foibles.

Jim, antismoking has a long, sick history. Crusades typically degenerate into a free-for-all of baseless, inflammatory claims to advance the agenda. For example, have a peek at this article (click on the link, Jimmy, and it will magically transport you to another page of information):
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/2/1981_2_94_print.shtml

Noteworthy, Jimbo, is that much of this history pre-dates the concoction of SHS “danger”. So, Jim, if the current crusade is based on the “science” [giggle] of SHS “danger”, then all of the previous crusades must have been based on nothing other than the intent of mysocapnists to impose their [deranged] will on society at large, but masqueraded as “scientific” at the time.

2.
Now, Jimmy, there are two (Jim….. “o-n-e”, “t-w-o”…. got that?) possibilities here. Either antismoking in the past has been based on pathological lying, to be completely, radically, incredibly turned about this time by a coherence of thought and a scientific basis amongst antismokers. Or (now pay attention Jimbo) antismoking this time around is exactly as it has been in the past – numerous, baseless inflammatory claims peddled as “scientific” in order to advance the agenda. Jimbo, have a think, strain that expert [giggle] mind of yours. Which possibility do you think is most likely?

The evidence is overwhelming that the antismoking mentality is a mental disorder. It is bound by, at least, acute fixation (monomania), Narcissism, obsession with control (megalomania), and a “god complex” – delusions of grandeur, delusions of omniscience, and delusions of benevolence. These dysfunctions are all held together by pathological lying.

3.
And this sort of dangerous mentality that can plague a society doesn’t begin with Joe Blow who runs the corner deli or who works in a low-paid job. These “crusades” are typically begun by the elite, the wealthy, the “educated”. This is the sort of damage that the “well-to-do” can inflict on society: Science is compromised, mental health is compromised, civility is compromised. And there’s little Jimbo, the self-declared expert [giggle] on secondhand smoke, who wants to identify with the well-to-do, jumping as desperately as possible on the bigotry bandwagon. And the well-to-do have made it worth Jimbo’s while to promote the “scientific” [giggle] reason – SHS “danger” - for all of the current antismoking fervor.

4.
Jimmy, all of the antismoking rhetoric and snobbery, sans SHS “danger”, has all been heard before. For example, consider:
“The Evening Post complained that “the nuisance of smoking in the streets has much increased lately” and the atmosphere in parts of Broadway “is almost as narcotic and sickening with tobacco smoke as the air of the traveler’s room in a High Dutch tavern.”
“No doubt,” the newspaper continued, “many of those persons who indulge in their favorite habit in the public streets, do it thoughtlessly without
thinking how offensive it is to others, and would be surprised at hearing that they are guilty of a blackguard practice.””

Those statements were made in 1839. What about this, Jimbo:
“What right has any man to become a perambulating nuisance —a moving smoke-house —a traveling volcano —leaving his trail of nauseous vapor on the air, which his neighbor cannot avoid, but must, perforce, respire?”

That statement was made in 1853. Here’s another from 1853:
A news article in 1853 reported that a passenger caught smoking on a Sixth Avenue streetcar was ordered by a conductor to stop, “but the ladies and gentlemen who were so unfortunate as to be in the car at the time, found their clothes so thoroughly besmoked that the disagreeable odor of smoke at second hand, remained with them till the following day.”

5.
And what about this statement from the early-1900s:
“Dr. Charles J. Pease, president of the Non-Smokers’ Protective League, argued for a ban against anyone smoking in a public place where women were present “who ought not be forced to inhale tobacco fumes.” He also pressed for a ban on smoking at park concerts.”

And here’s the antismoking elitism/snobbery from 1911:
“Anything that may be done to restrict the general and indiscriminate use of tobacco in public places, hotels, restaurants, railroad cars, will receive the approval of everybody whose approval is worth having.”
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/citys-battle-against-smoking-goes-back-400-years/

Jimbo, we’ve heard all of these claims currently; it’s the same mentality. The only difference this time is that shysters…. er… experts [giggle] like you are attempting to claim that antismokers are not just suffering a “nuisance” of [snobbish] preference, but they are being “harmed” from ANY exposure to SHS. Capisce?

Need I remind you, Jimbo, that the same elite, wealthy, and “educated” embraced/funded the abhorrent framework of eugenics in America from the turn of the last century. Eugenics had a later and even more catastrophic manifestation in Nazi Germany.

1.
Jimmy…. Jim…. Jimbo, here’s some further information for your consideration. Pre-WWII, antismoking (and anti-alcohol) was the domain of those with “religious” affiliations (Temperance Movement) and physicians with an [physicalist] ideological agenda (Eugenics Movement). These were the ones “offended” by even a whiff of smoke, determined to eradicate tobacco-use from society. Early last century, rabid antismoking occurred in only two nations – America and Germany – with the common denominator being Eugenics.

Post-WWII, smoking was quite popular. People had been through the trauma of war – with its ACTUAL, rather than contrived, dangers – and were happy to put aside the specter of fascist rule. The vast majority of nonsmokers were not offended by tobacco smoke; there wasn’t the hand-waving and hand-over-the-mouth behavior around smoke. Unfortunately, it took only a few decades post-WWII for the eugenicists to continue their derangement, this time with an exclusive emphasis on the behavioral dimension of eugenics. Consider the Godber/WHO [anti-tobacco] Blueprint. It was set in motion by the same eugenics personnel (physicians and those trained in the medical model), with the same eugenics fixations, using the same abominable “techniques” (denormalization/propaganda), and with the same eugenics societal-rule aspirations. The trick was simply not to call it “eugenics”, hoping that no-one would notice the similarity.

2.
When the current antismoking crusade began there were very, very few antismokers. In the 1970s, the early World Conferences on Smoking & Health attracted only around 500 international attendees, including some disparate antismoker groups. Part of the propaganda of the time was to refer to antismoking as a “movement” so that having to declare actual [small] numbers of antismokers involved could be avoided if asked by the media. The vast majority didn’t go around complaining of “stink” and butts.

“Stink” is subjective; it is a perception. The [government-supported] inflammatory propaganda of the last few decades has constantly played on the emotions of fear and hatred. These negative emotions shape perception. There are now persons who will happily sit next to an open-fire place with a definite smokiness in the air, or they will happily sit at a dining table with lit candles producing smoke; or they will happily sit in a kitchen where cooking-smoke is being produced. There is no hand-waving, or hand-over-the-mouth, or complaints of “stink” – and reasonably so. Yet, let someone light a cigarette in these same situations and these same people will degenerate into histrionics, screaming “imminent danger” and/or “unbearable stink”; they react to SHS as if it is a weapons-grade phenomenon such as sarin gas. This sort of belief is neurotic, i.e., irrational. And it would not be difficult to understand how they arrived at this delusional belief.

3.
Through propaganda/manipulation, the antismoking goal has been to alter perception amongst the public to “adopt” the antismoking mentality. This is what governments around the world have allowed/funded Tobacco Control (anti-smoking/tobacco) to inflict on society -

“However, internationally, the term [denormalization] is also used to encompass efforts challenging notions that smoking ought to be regarded as routine or normal, particularly in public settings. Hammond et al state that “social denormalisation” strategies seek “to change the broad social norms around using tobacco—to push tobacco use out of the charmed circle of normal, desirable practice to being an abnormal practice”.

Several authors – have suggested that Erving Goffman’s classic analysis of stigma and its resultant “spoiled identity” is consonant with how the meaning of smoking has changed in societies with widespread tobacco control. Goffman described stigmatisation as the transformation “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one”, writing that “Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity”.”

4.
In addition to SHS “danger”, the major emphases of propaganda/denormalization have been -

Smokers as malodourous [stink]
Smokers as litterers
Smokers as unattractive and undesirable housemates
Smokers as undereducated and a social underclass
Smokers as excessive users of public health services
Smokers as employer liabilities
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/1/25

This is all inflammatory propaganda intended for mass thought/behavior modification to produce [antismoking] conformity, i.e., a sort of brainwashing. If people can parrot with conviction any of the above with a view to the progressive removal of smoking/smokers from “normal” society, then they have been “brainwashed”.

Schuman claims he is suffering from a cluster of symptoms. So, Jimbo, if there are symptoms (uncorroborated), tell us what these are symptoms of. And please don’t tell us you’d rather not because you have no expertise in symptoms. Lacking [actual] expertise usually doesn’t stop you from making all manner of [baseless] claims. Go on, Jimmy, have a shot: Entertain us with your fertile, albeit neurotic/bigoted, imagination. Come up with some “modeling” - some statistical shenanigans, some advanced shysterism - that would be worthy of a wall at the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art.

Mr. Repace, you wrote, "It is of interest to inquire: what has motivated the often hysterical comments of the Patch Blog on the Schuman case?"

It is also "of interest to inquire" why, after a polite request, and a woefully inadequate cut&paste response by you, you have still failed to show even a single scientific study supporting your assertion that Schuman-type smoke levels increase the risk of such things as Endothelial Dysfunction. It's a simple and straightforward request, one that should be easily answered by any honest "expert" taking such a position... but you have deliberately avoided addressing it. I find that most definitely to be "of interest" and your clients and the judge should also find it to be so.

You then went on to say, "Mr. McFadden, for example, is one of more than a dozen crackpot columnists for the anti-public health organization FORCES. "

Hmm... that sounds lot like one of those "hysterical comments" you referred to, but I'll respond anyway. I've actually only gotten formally involved with FORCES in the last few years. I had no connection or involvement with them at all while fighting the antismoking lobby in the 1990s or while writing my book in the early 2000s. That lack of connection was unfortunate and one I have corrected in recent years.

Once you've provided the requested scientific backup for your claims, I'd be quite happy for you to share some examples of my "crackpot" ideas.

- MJM

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/2/1981_2_94_print.shtml

dead link magnetic and great write up!

Mr. Repace, you also wrote, "Apparently Mr. Schuman is not the only area resident concerned about this issue:" and linked to a letter by two activists who have gathered 500 signatures on a petition to ban apartment smoking and one of whom has "One Billion Deaths From Smoking" headlined on her website.

If indeed you're able to back up your scientific claims with some real science and win this case you may have quite a rich well to dip into for future "expert testimonies," eh? I guess, to take your own words then, I would have no real "interest to inquire: what has motivated" you in all this. Of course that infamous receipt you got from the Washington group a few years ago showing a $5,000 payment for a single afternoon of testimony favoring a state smoking ban out there might have satisfied that "interest" all by itself. Would you like me to link to it here? I'm happy to dig it up if you'd like to offer any criticism of it.

- MJM

1.
Jimbo: “Thanks, Mr. Magnetic, for a classic demonstration of why negotiations between…..”

Jimbo, congratulations! That was a quasi-humorous retort, entertaining even. Not quite your usual Museum of Modern Art standard, but promising nevertheless.

Jimmy, you’ll have to forgive me if your so-called “expertise” has worn very thin. But let’s see if I have your idea of “negotiations” right. According to you, negotiation is where a neurotic, pretentious antismoker who can parrot all the propaganda slogans tells a smoker that they must not smoke within a “hallowed” area around “superior”, pompous antismokers, and with no coherent reason for doing so. According to you, this “negotiation” failing - as it probably would given its one-sided, delusional nature - the government should legislate the one-sided perspective. This is an interestingly peculiar idea of “negotiation”, although very much consistent with your pattern of “reasoning”. Here’s a better question, Jimbo: Why should anyone be negotiating with people holding irrational beliefs (i.e., antismokers), other than where they could access some psychotherapy?

2.
Jim, let’s explore your notion of “negotiation” a little further. The first demand by the antismoking fanatics was in the mid-1980s where they wanted smoking banned on all short-haul flights in the USA. And, at the time, the fanatics were sure to point out (i.e., pathological lying) that they wanted no more than this small accommodation. Well, let’s see where we’ve landed since then:

3.
- Smoking has been banished from indoors in workplaces, smokers having to go outdoors in whatever weather to smoke. And when they do go outside, they are accused by antismokers of “wasting time”;
- Smoking has been banished from indoors in social places, smokers having to go outdoors in whatever weather to smoke;
- Smoking is being banned in outdoor settings (parks, beaches, campuses), smokers having no option to smoke - without breaking the law;
- Smokers have been refused the possibility of fostering and adopting children;
- Smoking status has been used to determine child custody in divorce;
- Smokers can be terminated from employment or are ineligible for employment – even where smoking does not occur on the job;
- People have lost businesses due to smoking bans;
- Smokers, including the elderly, have been threatened with eviction or refused housing;
- Patients that smoke have to endure the barrage of antismoking cultism in hospital settings, and must walk off hospital grounds and onto the street - even in their nightwear and in all weather - if they want to smoke;
- Mental patients (involuntary) will be physically and/or chemically (sedation) restrained rather than allow them to smoke a cigarette;
- Smokers have been denied medical treatment;
- Socializing for many smokers, particularly the elderly, has all but been removed.

4.
So, Jimbo, tell us, O wise and reasonable one [giggle], where the “negotiation” is in all of these steps? And remember, it all began with the demand for smoking bans on short-haul flights. But, give in to fanaticism and we’re quickly sliding on the slippery slope – a bandwagon effect. Most of the steps have nothing to do with even the fake attempt to protect nonsmokers from SHS “danger”. They are punitive measures: Conform – quit smoking – or officialdom will make life very difficult. It is a social-engineering exercise in the eugenics tradition, or what some reasonably refer to as “health fascism”.

The time for negotiation is long over. Enough is enough! Required now is to expose that the antismoking mentality (e.g., you) and the eugenics-infected Public Health system that legitimizes it are dangerously deranged and have already wreaked considerable damage.

If you’re afraid of second-hand smoke, you should also avoid cars, restaurants…and don’t even think of barbecuing.

here are just some of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke and what else contains them:

Arsenic, Benzine, Formaldehyde.

Arsenic- 8 glasses of water = 200 cigarettes worth of arsenic

Benzine- Grilling of one burger = 250 cigarettes

Formaldehyde – cooking a vegetarian meal = 100 cigarettes

And so on. You can stay at home all day long if you don’t want all those “deadly” chemicals around you, but in fact, those alleged 4000 chemicals in cigarettes are present in many foods, paints etc. in much larger quantities. And as they are present in cigarettes in very small doses, they are harmless. Sorry, no matter how much you like the notion of harmful ETS, it’s a myth.

Mr Repace I would ask you how can you even claim the man has exposure when your own testing shows the same air quality in a smokeless courtroom as in the mans air tight sealed domicile! What your really saying is the air quality in that part of the country,'' outdoor air being the mother of indoor air'' isnt up to par and that the plaintiff should move to say Arizona a desert environment! Or maybe youd go test the desert air and see if it meets your lowered levels of doom! Or perhaps youd just give the man a BIG PLASTIC TENT/BUBBLE to live in and see if those readings meet your lowered levels of doom!

A neighbor like the plaintiff probably would sue over a burned hamburger at a restaraunt and youd be their to testify that he was over come with PAH ingestion after he ate a part of it. Then youd offer your services up to a ambulance chasing lawyer that was suing for every person who smelled the grill smoke out on the street over airborne PAH ingestion!

Its time to give up the CHARADE the hokus pokus is getting rather dull!

Thanks to the surgeon general's "No Risk-Free Level of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke" belief, irrational fears are sanctified by our highest government medical authorities and all those below them who toe the line. It is this mentality, not science, that promotes laws in pursuit of citizens whose offence can be next to nothing compared to breathing radon, for example, which pervades the air we breathe. This shows how single-minded and disproportionate smoking ban believers are in their zealous pursuit of bans.

Mr. Repace, still failing to provide any scientific backup showing that levels of "smoke" in Schuman's apt have ever been shown to present real risks of such things as endothelial dysfunction, now challenges me to present a "safe level" of smoke exposure.

Well, Mr. Repace, I can no more do that than name a safe level of exposure to sunshine or even to alcohol fumes. Both alcohol and UV radiation are Class A carcinogens, but trying to sue a restaurant for allowing sunshine through its windows or allowing alcohol which evaporates into the air and "contaminates" other diners would be rather crazy, wouldn't you agree?

To worry about real health effects from the levels of smoke that normally migrate from one apartment to another represents the same level of "craziness" that worrying about occasional stray beams of sunshine or invisible carcinogenic alcohol fumes does, and it's a craziness that you and other advocates like you have encouraged in innocent people like Mr. Schuman.

Mr. Schuman's suit against GHI will likely fail. When it does, he should consider a followup lawsuit: against you. Why? Well, first of all my *guess* is that you probably had some hand in encouraging this present action of his, despite the fact that you knew there were no studies that would back up claims of harm. And secondly, for having built and stoked the fears of Mr. Schuman and others like him, harming the quality of their lives while profiting handsomely from those fears.

- MJM

Proposition 65, [California's] Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.5, aims to eliminate exposure to toxic substances that can cause cancer and birth defects by requiring companies to warn of toxic chemicals. ... It gives California citizens the right “to be informed about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” ... The lawsuit lists 39 chemicals found in environmental tobacco smoke, such as benzene, nicotine, lead and arsenic, that it says are known to the state to cause cancer and birth defects.
<http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/California/Insight/2011/09_-_September/Consumer_group_not_lovin__smoke_at_California_McDonald’s/>;

And, Mr. Repace, I'd be willing to bet that just about ALL those 39 chemicals are IN "California's Safe Drinking Water," and often present at levels FAR greater than any that Mr. Schuman was exposed to in his apartment... with the possible exception of nicotine. Would you like to try to make the novel claim that nicotine at such measured levels has actually been shown to be harmful Mr. Repace? You seem to have most noticeably failed to provide evidence for the endothelial dysfunction claim.
Or perhaps you just forgot to read my two postings directly above yours and the half dozen or so before that?

- MJM

The concept of generalization works well when promoting a fanaticism. Population views can intentionally cause panic at the personal level when no legitimate danger is possible or likely. This case is primarily to decide if a single person can impose his new personal preferences as a duty on both the managers and the other occupants and if so if he is owed compensation for his misery. There was always an option of moving into a smoke free building however it seems reasonable to move into a smoking allowed complex and demand smoke free after the fact. The testimony of his experts I believe is the real problem here. The court house measurement was higher by utilizing a relatively crude instrument of detection, the explanation was anything but completely forthcoming, To allow the generalization of 2.5 measurements to stand as evidence of tobacco smoke detection, would be like saying if it can travel under a bridge it must be a truck. And what of the evidence he is providing as an expert he is again allowed to generalize in his view that if it is tobacco smoke it is always all dangerous and if it is in the 2.5 micron range it has to be tobacco smoke with no evidence he has ever done any Speciation investigations, to back up his clients evidence, to determine what he was measuring and what component of the whole was indeed originating in his neighbor's apartment. This isn't science or scientific, this is promotion, nothing more and certainly nothing less.

More...

If we go to pub med and do a search for Air Pollutants/analysis we get over 20 thousand hits. It seems telling that the author who sells his services as an "air quality expert" would prefer to cite only his own.

Hubris awaits the participants in the large international political organization known as "Tobacco Control". It may well be understood that the organization's promotions increased the levels of tobacco smoke toxicity and mortality figures, by their unethical promotions of what are known as fire safe cigarettes. Reduced ignition propensity or RIP, are sold on the claims of "protection of children" against house fires said to be caused by cigarettes and smoking. The logic absolutely fails the science and all forms of common sense. Mr. Repace as an expert in the field should be well aware of the physics involved here. When you reduce the ignition temperature of an organic material as the fuel, you dramatically increase the toxic load in the smoke. The logic and physical nature of this promotion fails on two indisputable points.

First if your concerns lay within the dangers of tobacco smoke, by increasing the toxic load you increase the health risks to not only the millions of smokers who will be expossed to the largest degree, but to non smokers by the highly increased levels of toxins in the smoke, they will be exposed to.

more..

The primary failing is seen in the numbers of those who smoke and how many billions of cigarettes are used annually, compared to the number of fires that result. In statistical terms the ratio is so diverse that you could say in the norms of acceptable risk that no risk exists. The logic that "cigarettes cause fires" or that "smoking causes fires" is ignorant of the fact that a very few are negligent and careless and in the norm people are aware of the danger and conduct themselves accordingly. If only the so called experts at Tobacco "Control" could observe the same cautions. Many predictable dangers and health risks could be avoided, by the common sense first approach. In place of the gleeful discovery and giddiness of a new strategy approach, by an obscure tidbit from the tobacco control papers, which drew favor and popularity among the anti-smoker possessed, That by reducing the temperature we can make cigarettes smell more repugnant and increase the number of non smokers who will follow their comfort, as entitlement for the campaign being promoted.

Secondhand Smoke in Multi-Unit Housing
Our apartments are our homes. Most of the time, what we do in our own homes doesn’t make a difference to anybody else—and is nobody else’s business. But sometimes, our actions affect our neighbors. Loud music can be a nuisance. Cooking smells can be annoying. But secondhand smoke can cause serious health problems, in addition to being a nuisance. Secondhand smoke is a first-rate killer: <http://www.mdsmokefreeapartments.org/tenants/multi_unit_housing.html>;.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at least 6,841 Marylanders are estimated to die prematurely ever year due to cigarette smoking, and additional 1,600 Marylanders will die from exposure to secondhand smoke:
<http://fha.maryland.gov/ohpetup/tob_home.cfm>;.

In Maryland, 14.9% of the adult population (aged 18+ years)—over 640,000 individuals—are current cigarette smokers. Across all states, the prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults ranges from 9.3% to 26.5%. Maryland ranks 4th among the states:
<http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/state_highlights/2010/states/maryland/index.htm>;.

Mr. Repace, with all due respect.

As an expert in the field, could you elaborate on the apparent diversity of you opinion in the assesment of this man's living environment and the reports prepared by the EPA in assessments of the monitoring of the World Trade center? Deemed to be safe and were predicted to have no significant short or long term effects both in the assessments of indoor particulate and as a result if long term outdoor monitoring.

http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/wtc/WTC_report_7b3i.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/wtc/

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/reports/contaminants_of_concern_benchmark_study.pdf

Further how would you differentiate the effects seen in the six cities research from the speculated dangers you convey in mortality figures, by the dangers of second hand tobacco smoke? Are there really enough bodies in the annual mortality figures observed, to assign both?

In the larger sense in court testimony, are you truly speaking as a promoter or as a scientific witness?

I note that prior to the publication of your many reports on the dangers of tobacco smoke you wore a woefully inadequate ww2 gas mask which could not protect against PM 2.5 or the much smaller measures described by the "4000 deadly toxins" we read about in the bold headline script. Surprisingly, after the investigations and reporting, you abandoned any form of similar protection, or do you advise those you employ to collect air samples, to wear the apparently, in your view, appropriate protection. Isn't this negligent on your part as an employer to assign work that exposes employees to unsafe working conditions? Or do you believe as most people believe that cigarette smoke is not dangerous. A point that can be demonstrated by your apparent negligence as an employer, or by the universal reaction when you light one up and no one runs away.

1600 ehh James,you think we would see a few names from a list of 1600 naming shs/ets as the cause of death,yet it doesnt exist.Mythological deaths and disease drummed up in the CDC'S mind control division or some other governmental agency using voodoo magic studies of junk science!

Oh and james I dont think anybody really cares how many people are smokers,obese or drug users! What people care about are working and making a paycheck! Raising there kids to have honesty as a leading moral marker something that has escaped the government and its employees like yourself. The EPA has outlived its usefulness long ago and today is nothing more than an official sounding name where green radical environmentalists can force their deranged ideology onto the rest of us! It kills jobs,business and more. Its people like you that have lowered the bar of sciences integrity to a level not seen since alchemists conjured up gold from lead!

James I would concur that bothering the neighbors peace and safety is not appropriate conduct. We should have a right to privacy and enjoyment of our homes. However when a pre-existing condition exists when we move in, can we truly fault the neighbor or our own lack of due diligence for our discomfort. If you buy a home near an airport you should expect to be exposed not only to excessive noise, but the daily bombardment of carcinogens from the diesel fuel used by the planes. If you buy a car with no windshield can you sue afterwards for it's incomplete condition?

We have always found ways of accommodating the needs of others and I am certain we could once again, but only after the Public Health community finds a way of cleaning up its own backyard. Getting back to science and leaving the profits, to companies that actually produce something of worth. The per 100,000 figures in cancer mortality has not changed in over 60 years, would smoking be designated a significant problem, if cures in place of attitude adjustments were the focus? Personal autonomy suffers greatly by the current cure by fear mongering and ratcheted down "control" campaigns, if you value freedom and inclusive attitudes, you could do much better.

I find it interesting that cooking smells are part of your argument. Have you actually seen the carcinogenic health risks of overcooked meat in comparison to the increased risk of tobacco smoke? 2.0 vs 0.2 respectively
Who will we be suing next?

The recent Surgeon General's report indicated that exposures to second hand tobacco smoke, in the current environment, has been reduced by more than 75%. The current mortality figures hold little support for the premiss that environmental tobacco smoke is a significant health risk. When we factor in the newer numbers, expressing exposures and duration, we would also have to question the .2 vector used to predict the number of those killed by tobacco smoke every year. The numbers continue to rise with population growth, as the exposures decline. Any suggestions as to why the cancer mortality figures have not changed, in spite of the many efforts to control the population and their lifestyle choices?

If we draw a 100 mile swath on a map, from the north boarder of Texas to three mile island to the north east we see, according to CDC figures and maps, the highest rates of cancer mortality and morbidity by far, seen in the United States. How this fits within the predictable numbers of those "killed by smoking" is puzzling. Is smoking prevalence higher in this area? or exposures to the smoke more concentrated?

When we look at the SEERS stat database, tracking cancers, we see cancer mortality divided by race [even in this day and age]. This is the most repulsive point that I see, in the continued expansion of healthcare by negative propaganda, eventually with the current mood of denormalization and discrimination, such as we see by the promotions reflective of this lawsuit. It is only a natural progression if we hate people who smoke we will hate even more, those who produce the most cost, or smoke more, as defined by culture and race.

A place we have already seen in the not to distant past and it wasn't a place many of us would like to revisit. Apparently with the exception of those who consider themselves the entitled to their entitlements crowd. The self sanctimonious brethren, who believe themselves, the logically entitled masters of "control".

Mr. Repace, a brief summary of our exchange thus far:

1) You cited the claim of low ETS levels leading to “a rapid and sharp increase in endothelial dysfunction.”

2) I asked you to support that claim with “actual scientific studies” showing such "rapid and sharp increase in endothelial dysfunction”

3) You responded by characterizing me as a “nicotine addict.”

4) I repeated my request.

5) You suggested I buy a trial transcript for $4,000 or pay $200 to hear you speak at a conference.

6) I repeated my request.

7) You replied by cutting and pasting 28 citations.

8) I carefully examined & individually responded to your 28 cites, finding NONE addressed the question despite your efforts with urine sampling of bar patrons.

9) I again repeated my request.

10) You responded by calling me a “crackpot columnist.”

11) I again repeated my request.

The exchanges continued a bit further, including your cite that much higher exposure in CA's drinking water was "Safe," but in summary, I *still* have received no answer to my very basic and simple request as noted back in item #2.

Why is that, Mr. Repace? Why do you, a $500 to $5,000/hr “expert consultant,” have no answer to back up a simple request that lies at the heart of your current efforts? I ask you once again, for the 6th time, please share just two citations clearly backing the claim of “endothelial dysfunction” from exposure to ETS at the levels discussed in this case.

- MJM

Mr. Repace, I would expect that you, as an "international expert," would have the quite basic information I and others have requested here right at your fingertips, but your responses have been ... well, rather nonresponsive. Not being a professional expert witness myself, I'm not aware of what impact exchanges such as these might have on a court case, but I would hope that the judge is allowed to read and consider such things while thinking about the arguments and credibility of witnesses. While the case may technically be just a contract dispute between Mr. Schuman and GHI, the fact that you were brought in as an expert witness (for 33 hours of court time and 56 single-spaced pages of written testimony as you noted above) to testify about the low levels of exposure to the ETS in Schuman’s apartment would indicate some importance being attached to the credibility of your statements, particularly if you were getting paid at such rates as $450/hour! (I should note for clarity: I do not know what Mr. Repace was actually paid here. My $500 - $5,000 estimate is purely that: an informed estimate.)

Your lack of adequate response raises significant question as to that credibility. Granted, you have been posed questions by several people, and you might plead that you cannot afford the time to respond to *all* the points raised; but your participation here clearly implies accepting some obligation to reasonably respond to the most relevant questions.

- MJM

Well just as everybody said even people in tobacco control sahigher taxes would lead to massive bootlegging in cigarettes! Look right in maryland the cigarette gestapo!

9 indicted for cigarette smuggling

They’re the tip of the iceberg,” Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot said. “There is an explosion of cigarette smuggling going on.”

Comptroller’s Supervisory Agent Mike Madison peered through his binoculars, eyeing the black Toyota Camry as it pulled up to the Woodbridge tobacco shop. A man in a polo shirt got out, laid down a mat in his trunk and went inside. He emerged carrying several grocery bags — 10 to 12 cartons of cigarettes, Madison guessed — and drove away.

It sounds innocuous. But tobacco smugglers like these, officials say, are responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tax revenue to Maryland each year. On Thursday, Prince George’s County prosecutors announced that they had indicted nine people — allegedly responsible for nearly $30,000 in lost tax revenue — on criminal charges of transporting and conspiring to transport unstamped cigarettes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/9-indicted-for-cigarette-smuggling/2011/09/22/gIQAhvsBoK_story.html

Just like during alcohol prohibition:

Trade In Black-Market Cigarettes: Hot, Dangerous
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

Quebecers still lighting up in spite of smuggling crackdown

Updated: Sun Sep. 25 2011 3:29:13 PM

ctvmontreal.ca

MONTREAL — The celebrated crackdown on cigarette smuggling has done little to reduce smoking in the province, according to the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control.

Co-director Flory Doucas is now calling on authorities to intensify efforts to reduce smoking in the province.

Doucas urges more measures to make smoking less attractive to consumers, particularly young ones. She would like to speed the process involved in putting unpleasant images on cigarette boxes. The photos depict illnesses suffered by smokers.

And although the organization is happy for the smuggling crackdown, Doucas also considers the operation has diverted attention from the real problem of smoking in general.

The sale of legal cigarettes has risen by 30 percent between 2008 and 2010 according to numbers released by Statistics Canada last week.
http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110925/mtl_smoking_110925/20110925/?hub=MontrealHome
Overall cigarette consumption has, however, remained stable during that same period. The group says the numbers indicate that black market cigarette trafficking was halved between 2008 and 2010.

Twenty-four percent of Quebecers over the age of 12 smoke according to the 2006 census. That is two percent above the national average.

If this case is successful and the court accepts that a harm exists by the evidence provided. The environmental movement is going to have a field day, with the new adjustments to AIQ assessments, that will become a legal obligation of the government, whereby "no safe level" will become the norm in dealing with all carcinogens, On an equal foundation, as presented and accepted by the courts. There are currently 43,000 chemicals employed in American industry today, those industries will be forced to shut down or move, fearing litigation. Ambient air is the major component of tobacco smoke as presented. The vast majority of these chemicals have never been assessed for known safe levels or acceptable human risk exposure rates. The new normal will turn the environmental departments of government on their head with the bulk of government expenditures in the foreseeable future, dedicated to establishing a new NIOSH handbook which should prove to be the most extensive document ever produced by man.

The good news? once those assessments are done the current day experts in the field will require re-education, to sustain their standing and the risk of second hand smoke will be delegated where common sense has always placed it, [no one runs away] in the realm of fanatics, hypochondriacs and childish tantrum driven minds, that never attained maturity, or understood the concept of accommodation for others who accommodate in kind.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/

Good luck with that.

BTW James a word to the wise.

Although the term "no safe level" might strike fear in the hearts of your victims. It is a term that provides no useful information. That reality is growing in the public's awareness. If you hope to promote fear and harms as a witness before the court, based in nothing?

"Hubris awaits..."
Chapman et al.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/suppl_2/ii3.full.pdf

"The right to health relevant information derives from the
principles of autonomy and self direction and has been
recognised in international declarations. Providing
accurate health information is part of the basis for
obtaining ‘‘informed consent’’ and is a recognised
component of business ethics, safety communications, and
case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco
and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasise the
message that there is ‘‘no safe cigarette’’ or ‘‘no safe
tobacco product’’. We propose that the ‘‘no safe’’ message
is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the
right to health relevant information."

If supermarkets sold scientific knowledge, secondhand smoke science would be a checkout line tabloid. This court case should be judged accordingly.

Not ONE of those govt and non-government health organizations which claim that tobacco smoke kills or causes some diseases got around to the basic, integral and necessary First Step of defining, analyzing, or adequately describing or qualifying this "smoke" they supposedly studied.
We do not know what they researched.
Was it plain tobacco? They don't say.
Was it fake tobacco made, in patented ways from many kinds of industrial waste cellulose, to resemble tobacco? Not said.
Or was it a typical cigarette contaminated with residues of any of 450 or so registered tobacco pesticides, radiation from still legal use of certain phosphate fertilizers, dioxin-creating chlorine pesticides and chlorine-bleached paper, and any of about 1400 (!) untested, often toxic and carcinogenic non-tobacco additives?

We have "health" laws galore banning tobacco use...but no studies of smoke from tobacco, itself, have yet been presented to courts or legislatures or even medical journals to justify any of those laws...except in fire hazard situations.

We know how much legislators are in the pockets of, well, the very industries that hope to evade responsibilities for the effects of their tobacco adulterants (pesticides, chlorine, pharms that make tobacco pesticides AND additives, big /oil, paper, etc., AND their insurers and investors. But who has checked judges, jurors, and witnesses in smoking trials for economic links to those industries? They all want to blame the victims.

If we can begin calling typical cigarettes Pesticide Pegs, Dioxin Dowels, or Radiation Rods...then we'd get somewhere. That would be far more effective, informational and accurate than calling them "tobacco".
Search up "Fauxbacco" http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com for all the references needed.

Mr. Repace, I am still waiting for some actual citations of scientific studies to back up your claim that the low levels of ETS as experienced by Mr. Schuman would cause endothelial dysfunction. And while waiting, I noticed that you have expanded the claim in you post above on multi-unit housing referring to smoke in such situations: "secondhand smoke can cause serious health problems, in addition to being a nuisance. Secondhand smoke is a first-rate killer: "

Mr. Repace, other than the possible claim of allergic asthmatic reactions (which could just as easily be caused by a neighbor's cat or a rosebush in a planter on their balcony), can you point to ANY scientific studies showing that the levels of smoke experienced in Mr. Schuman's apartment have either been shown to "cause serious health problems" or be "a first rate killer"?

Actually, in following your primary link there to "Smoke Free Apartments In Maryland" (Have you ever worked for them btw?) I think two of the points they raise could very well be aimed more at you and Mr. Schuman than at the smoker in the GHI case: the "Breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment" and the "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress." The distress you yourself have caused Mr. Schuman in creating and fanning his concerns about smoke far beyond any rational level is probably far more than the distress caused by whatever scent of smoke might sometimes "invade" his apartment.

- MJM

The constant cries of "shills to big tobacco" as the most popular defense are growing very old and very weak. I see no currently active names attached to the big tobacco bogyman. Corporate executives are trained in the same schools are taught the same ethical values and live in the same communities as "Public Health experts" who openly shill for big pharma interests without shame or fear of repercussions,. many of the disclosure submissions listing conflicts, we see in published papers, don't even mention major funding sources. They are not mentioned because the most obvious shills don't even recognize the conflict for what it is. Major political movements that come from no where overnight and find space throughout the major media networks, having never invested any of the real work or time that used to legitimize a lobby movement? So what is a corporate shill that professes to not only protect the children but trains the children to recite their political rhetoric? It is a promotion and as all promotions go, large financial investments are made in search of a profit on that investment. Just as all corporate executives are trained to do, in the same educational institutions and in the same marketplace, under the same battery of rules and restrictions.

So what are you really saying, that is beyond discussion or critique?

I hear it through the drama and the used car salesman soundbites, nothing of legitimate value, being sold for much more that it's worth.

Ya right James,LMAO you know whats been going on for a long time!

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/02/government_in_new_dispute_with.html

Government in new dispute with tobacco companies
Published: Friday, February 04, 2011, 11:46 AM Updated: Friday, February 04, 2011, 1:44 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department was in a new dispute Friday with the tobacco industry over the government's landmark lawsuit against the companies.

The government has prepared corrective statements it wants the companies to be forced to make about the health hazards from smoking. But the tobacco companies don't want those proposed statements put in the public record before they get a chance to review them.

FORCED TO MAKE.......SOUNDS like somebodys not playing fair doesnt it.So if the tobacco companies make statements then the nazi anti-smokers get to say see even the tobacco companies admit this!!!!! force isnt that what hitler did at bayonet point!

James the forced government mandates on big tobacco is as unjust as if the government forced you to admit your companies existence has caused undo mental anguish and phobias upon the general population over second hand smoke fears. But I would never demand the federal government force you to admit such a thing even though its true! You can simply pleade the 5th unless you control the governmental beauracracy and the courts which is what seems to be the case now with the public health advocacy groups that have their primary people in charge of the CDC,HHS,NIH,FDA ETC!

James;

Those statements will always be tainted and their credibility challenged. In light of the fact that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation spent over a billion dollars promoting the fears of second hand smoke. Coincidentally they hold millions of shares in Johnson and Johnson. A direct conflict of interest, abet acceptable, that undermines the legitimacy of the entire Public Health community internationally. The announcement of partnerships between the World Health Organization and various drug makers [stakeholder partnerships] similarly places a significant taint which underscores the true agendas at play here. Two Internal investigations at the WHO, described those relationships in a term "Organizational Capture". Members of your own Tobacco control community Bill Godshall and Michael Siegal have publicly denounced the relationship between the Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids Matt Myers et al, and their dealings with Phillip Morris in promotion of a deal to ban flavorings not currently sold, while protecting the one flavor [menthol] which is actually sold. All in all, you can only trust the information to be as good as it's source and many questions arise in connection with the credibility and the financial conflicts that exist. In considering all information that is produced by advocacy campaigns and all sound bites we hear repeated time and time again, which are admittedly tested not for their credibility, but for emotional reactions. And that speaks volumes in itself

Mr. Repace, I am not interested, in any way, shape, or form, in what Philip Morris has to say.

I have asked you a very specific question, now for the EIGHTH time here: Please cite some examples of scientific studies that show endothelial dysfunction (one of the major conditions you claimed in your first posting here) being caused by the levels of smoke you measured in Schuman's apartment. Since this trial, and the levels of smoke in his apartment, are the precise issue here, all of your irrelevancies are simply that: irrelevancies. As a professional "expert witness," someone who makes a good bit of their living off of testifying in court in favor of smoking bans and such things, I am quite confident that you must understand what it means to "answer the question." There is absolutely NO reason for you to avoid answering, Mr. Repace, unless there simply IS NO answer -- unless indeed there IS NO evidence of such harm to Mr. Schuman or anyone else in his apartment or elsewhere from the levels of smoke you measured.

You were also clearly asked to "point to ANY scientific studies showing that the levels of smoke experienced in Mr. Schuman's apartment have either been shown to 'cause serious health problems' or be 'a first rate killer' " in order to back up your claims here of such.

I am beginning to think that in addition to suing you for exacerbation of emotional pain and distress that perhaps Mr. Schuman should simply sue you for incompetence.

- MJM

Michael, Repace the manipulator seems to have out manipulated himself getting you an unmanipulated answer. I find this a ridiculous law suit in the first place an insult to reasonable thinking people. If Repace could prove to this court he walks on water it might get him the $ and attention he seeks but not gonna happen. I have a tendancy to believe the judge may just throw this out of court and possibly advise the defendants to lay harrasment charges. Let's face it Schuman does not make for a good neighbour in any case, who would want him ?

Ah James, always the pessimist who prefers to surrender to fears, even to the point of avoiding certainty, as a best practices approach.

For a more ethical and scientific view, one should consider this article and avoid the uncertainty and ignorance of "no safe level" completely.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/2/312.short

"During this same period, the use of mode of action (MOA) for risk assessment has been increasing and there is a need for quantitative risk assessments on an ever-growing number of environmental chemicals. Genome-wide (i.e., global) measurements provide both a discovery engine for identifying MOA and an information base for subsequent evaluation of MOA when conducting a risk assessment. These genome-wide measurements are not chosen based on the hypothesized MOA and therefore represent an unbiased check of the comprehensiveness of an MOA. In addition, optimal design for MOA studies is critical to provide the time and dose dependent data required for quantitative model building. "

Second hand smoke it's the carcinogenic allotment was designed, within a void of invitro or invivo evidence, the necessary biological plausibility required, to sustain an epidemiological prediction. Diesel exhaust will readily initiate cancer growth in the lab, which adds credence to the invitro/invivo correlation and epidemiological investigations finally sealed the deal, the oil industry lobbies successfully avoided for over five decades.

If we have no dose response relationship, no invivo invitro observations and only scant epidemiological evidence by ,memory recall data, with the largest studies confirming we have nothing, how is it that second hand smoke achieved more than the customary "more research needs to be done" as was repeated all those years in respect to diesel exhaust? Especially with such convincing evidence that it was indeed a class one carcinogen.

I suspect from what I have read, the rating was helped along significantly by none other than our friend James here, who continues his promotions to this very day.

A man of conviction and faith to the end.

It is rather rich to point at the carcinogenic guidelines, When he likely promoted an illegitimate rating, in order to fit the subject to the procedural guidelines in place of the other way around, the old fashioned way.

LMAO

"Substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances in this list have been classified by the IARC as Group 1: The agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent (mixture) may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent (mixture) acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity."

So where is the evidence?

Once again the crickets have the floor.

I am hoping a lot of the anti-smokers are paying attention and come to realise just how much these anti smoker FOLLOW THE MONEY schemes are costing. Governments the world over bash the smoker and have been doing it for years. In laymans terms you might ask your self where has all the money gone. There has been a great many jobs lost, the uncertainty of the tobacco farmer, the bars, I could go on and on. I will say some anti- smokers are now getting the picture, plantiff Schuman is not even in it only a bye product of the stupitity. Your elected officials everywhere they are, all stripes need to get out of that pin the tail on the donkey game they are playing and wake up to some real facts or go home. For most people freedom of choices should be the most cherrished thing they have, the real sin is to stand back and watch another lose his because as as a wise one once said the next door "THEY" knock on might be yours. Anti - Smoker it is getting time you figure out who "THEY" is

From my own link above;

"Although the vision of risk assessment based entirely on in vitro toxicity pathway data is laudable, there are many challenges to be overcome before it could even potentially become a reality (Collins et al., 2008). In fact, it is entirely possible that some combination of in vitro and in vivo approaches will be required as we discuss below. The first of these challenges is that the full suite of toxicity pathways must be defined and robust in vitro assays developed for each. The total number of toxicity pathways is unknown, but it should be safe to assume that the number will be in the hundreds at least. "

Now consider with the complexity at hand, how damaging it would be to place even one false class one carcinogen into the mix.

One could only imagine the amount of resources and time that will be wasted before that single culprit is found out, as it will be in time.

The thought of what History will say about anyone who cut the corner for the common good, or just to make his own life more comfortable? It must keep that person up at night wondering how long it will be, before science finds him out.

Assuming that person actually exists, or would dare.

Naw That is just insane conspiracy nut thinking, right James...

Mr. Repace, if you are referring to the March 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment it clearly has no relevance to your assertion about low levels of ETS exposure causing endothelial dysfunction: "endothelial dysfunction" refers to circulatory problems, not carcinogenic problems. They both begin with the letter "C" but are actually quite different. And yes, I have read it and seem more familiar with it than you are.

If you are referring to the November 2005 update to "Health Effects Information Used In Cancer and Noncancer Risk Characterization" you should try actually reading the citation: tobacco smoke is not mentioned even a single time, much less examined at Schuman’s levels.

I find it curious that you believe me to be innocent of understanding exposure-response relationships when in reality that is exactly your own difficulty. If Mr. Schuman's neighbor drilled a hole in the wall and rigged a vacuum cleaner to directly blow smoke from several hundred cigarettes into Schuman's each evening I would not argue against health effects being involved. However, it is *PRECISELY* because of "exposure-response relationships, that the effect of submicroscopic amounts of smoke between apartments falls apart. You actually might benefit from doing some reading of your own Mr. Repace: I explore the subject in some detail in “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains.” It's a much better reference than your "Philip Morris" nonsense. (Continued...)

(Continued...)

And finally, I would like to note, again, your continued inability, after a full week of trying, to offer even ONE substantial citation, much less any sort of substantial body of evidence, in support of the contentions made on Mr. Schuman's behalf at the trial.

Such an inability does indeed call into very serious question your competence and your forthrightness in whatever presentations you may have made to Mr. Schuman and/or his attorneys prior to this action. (By the way, are you willing to be forthcoming about what such relationships may have existed? Or to emulate your double on the opposing side of the testimony <Mr. Gots> and reveal your hourly pay and duties regarding this trial and the amount of income you derive from selling your "expertise" in this fashion? Or is such openness as far beyond your abilities as simple scientific citations seem to be?

- MJM

(I should clarify one statement in the above. Mr. Repace, you have failed to offer even ONE substantial citation, much less any sort of substantial body of evidence, in support of the contention that the levels of smoke in Mr. Schuman's apartment have been shown to cause such things as the endothelial dysfunction that you claimed in your first posting here. Whether you tried to establish such a link during the trial while knowing that there was actually knowing there was no solid scientific support for such a claim is something I do not actually know.... not having $4,000 in spare change to pop for a transcript.)

- MJM

Mr Repace is having as much of a difficult time with his answer as it is to find airtight apartments which are a problem all of there own, even without a smoker outside.

Since you hold yourself up as an expert on secondhand smoke, Mr. McFadden -- why don't you enlighten us all and divulge what the safe level of exposure is?

Tobacco smoke exposure not only contributes to the development of atherosclerotic disease, but can also trigger acute coronary events through smoke’s immediate
effects on platelet and vascular endothelium function. Implementation of strong smoke-free laws has generally been followed by rapid decreases in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction: the average decline was 17% in the USA, Italy, Scotland, Canada, Ireland, France, England, and Argentina 1 year after the laws took effect and grew to about 30% after 3 years.
From: Effective tobacco control is key to rapid progress in reduction of non-communicable diseases. Stanton Glantz, Mariaelena Gonzalez,
www.thelancet.com Vol 378 Published online September 29, 2011 DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60615-6

Do Smoking Bans Reduce Heart Attacks?

“In contrast with smaller regional studies,” says a RAND Corporation study, “we find that smoking bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction [heart attack] or other diseases.”
In fact, “An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature.”
In other words, although heart attacks do decline in some places with smoking bans, there are just as many places where they rise. On average, the difference between jurisdictions with smoking bans and jurisdictions without smoking bans is essentially zero.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/do-smoking...
...

Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Shows McDonalds Meal Causes Same Degree of Endothelial Dysfunction as Brief Tobacco Smoke Exposure; Anti-Smoking Groups' Claims are Flawed

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-study-shows-mcdonalds-meal-causes.html

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

From: Glantz, Stanton A
Date: Sun Aug 19 2007 - 21:00:22 PDT

The finding of similar changes in endothelial function with a high cholesterol load is not new. It just shows that the high oxidant load has effects similar to SHS (which is probably also acting, at least in part through the oxidant load in the smoke). We pubished the first paper on this over ten years ago, when I was an associate editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. (The "intervention there was an eg McMuffin.)

In addition to the acute effects, the associated insult to the vascular endothelium is important for the long-run development of atheroschlerosis.

Mike's comments are further evidence that he just does not understand modern vascular biology."

as to Glantz's comments that Dr. Siegel doesn't understand modern vascular biology well, one needs only compare the oxidant load of mass of SHS inhaled by a bystander to the mass of a McDonalds meal to realize it is really Glantz who does not understand modern vascular biology very well.

In addition Glantz ignores the fact that the McDonalds meal contains all the same components present in SHS, but in much greater quantities.
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/99n1174/ts00020.pdf

Not only does Glantz conveniently ignore the more plausible science Glantz apparantly does not even acknowlege dosimetry exists.
..........................................

If dialation of the brachial artery is affected by something as normal and routine as eating a meal, is it even appropriate to refer to it as a "dysfunction"?

I feel quite confident that changes in bloodflow in the brachial artery could be measured in individuals who, say, jog a lap around the track, or maybe after taking an asprin, or even possibly while watching an hilarious movie. Are these "dysfunctions"?

Maybe it's just a normal physiological response. Not every measurable change in the human body needs to be pathologized.

James its really become apparent these last few years that all the second hand smoke and mirror claims are actually normal human body functions that anti-tobacco has abused to claim shs/ets caused it,when in fact you cant even prove direct smoking causes disease or death! Your world of epidemeiological risk factors is created science comparing apples to oranges and even then its mired in recall bias,former smokers classified as non-smokers, besides the ets researchers own bias. Then we have cherry picked data/studies in the epa report and even in the SG reports. Its you prohibitionists and nannyists that have done more harm to actual science than any witch doctor could ever do! How did witch doctors have power over the people, simple propaganda'' THEY SCARED THEM TO DEATH'' mythological dangers that never existed until they/you conjured them up from thin air!

Since you hold yourself up as an expert on secondhand smoke, Mr. McFadden -- why don't you enlighten us all and divulge what the safe level of exposure is?

Its already been done!

Don't fret over list of cancer 'risks'
www.dispatch.com/.../...r-list-ofcancer-risks.html

[["We are being bombarded" with messages about the dangers posed by common things in our lives, yet most exposures "are not at a level that are going to cause cancer," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society's deputy chief medical officer.
Linda Birnbaum agrees. She is a toxicologist who heads the government agency that just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk.
"Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam," she said. Levels of styrene that leach from food containers "are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.
Carcinogens are things that can cause cancer, but that label doesn't mean that they will or that they pose a risk to anyone exposed to them in any amount at any time.]]

Now,Im glad to see the ACS admitting to the dose response relationship finally!

So now we understand why the following is factual:

[[are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.]]

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

[[ETS between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers]]

www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthia/article/7458828

[[OSHA the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded]]

JUST AMAZING ISNT IT
...

James there are safe levels for everything and you know this, for every chemical there is a threshold where harm might exist,then the threshold where it does exist! The safe levels determined by virtue of toxicology on the human body is OSHA and why PEL'S were established. Then we see the rabid enviro/greens at EPA lowering the pm2.5 standard by half! Utter politics as usual and how many jobs did that cost the american worker! What has been established is you have lowered the bar of threshold to a drop of water drowning a full grown man. SHS is but a candle and you sale it as if it were the SUN!

Mr. Repace, you force me to repeat my concern that Mr. Schuman may simply sue you for incompetence. A few hours ago you (10:57am 09/29) you posted, "Since you hold yourself up as an expert on secondhand smoke, Mr. McFadden -- why don't you enlighten us all and divulge what the safe level of exposure is?"

But a week ago, (3:53am, 09/23) you posted, "As long as you'd like to play the game of "Expert Witness For A Day," Mr. McFadden, why don't you sit in the witness chair and explain to the Judge what you think the safe level for exposure to tobacco smoke is, and what your scientific support for that statement is?"

I answered you, with care, and at length, but you were evidently unable to either read or understand my posting. I will now post it again in hopes that you'll do better the second time around.

- MJM
P.S. The reposting will now, I believe, mark the TENTH time in this one thread that you have been asked to provide citations to even just two or three studies showing endothelial dysfunction being caused by the "low levels of exposure" you cited in your first post here and which this trial was concerning. See below:

1:27pm on Friday, September 23, 2011

Mr. Repace, still failing to provide any scientific backup showing that levels of "smoke" in Schuman's apt have ever been shown to present real risks of such things as endothelial dysfunction, now challenges me to present a "safe level" of smoke exposure.

Well, Mr. Repace, I can no more do that than name a safe level of exposure to sunshine or even to alcohol fumes. Both alcohol and UV radiation are Class A carcinogens, but trying to sue a restaurant for allowing sunshine through its windows or allowing alcohol which evaporates into the air and "contaminates" other diners would be rather crazy, wouldn't you agree?

To worry about real health effects from the levels of smoke that normally migrate from one apartment to another represents the same level of "craziness" that worrying about occasional stray beams of sunshine or invisible carcinogenic alcohol fumes does, and it's a craziness that you and other advocates like you have encouraged in innocent people like Mr. Schuman.

Mr. Schuman's suit against GHI will likely fail. When it does, he should consider a followup lawsuit: against you. Why? Well, first of all my *guess* is that you probably had some hand in encouraging this present action of his, despite the fact that you knew there were no studies that would back up claims of harm. And secondly, for having built and stoked the fears of Mr. Schuman and others like him, harming the quality of their lives [etc].

- MJM

So breathing radioactive particles is good for you? Tobacco companies knew that cigarette smoke contained radioactive alpha particles for more than four decades and developed "deep and intimate" knowledge of these particles' cancer-causing potential, but they deliberately kept their findings from the public, according to a new study by UCLA researchers.

The analysis of dozens of previously unexamined internal tobacco industry documents, made available in 1998 as the result of a legal settlement, reveals that the industry was aware of cigarette radioactivity some five years earlier than previously thought and that tobacco companies, concerned about the potential lung cancer risk, began in-depth investigations into the possible effects of radioactivity on smokers as early as the 1960s.

"The documents show that the industry was well aware of the presence of a radioactive substance in tobacco as early as 1959," the authors write. "Furthermore, the industry was not only cognizant of the potential 'cancerous growth' in the lungs of regular smokers, but also did quantitative radiobiological calculations to estimate the long-term lung radiation absorption dose of ionizing alpha particles emitted from cigarette smoke."

The study, published online Sept. 27 in Nicotine & Tobacco Research, adds to a growing body of research detailing the industry's knowledge of cigarette smoke radioactivity and its efforts to suppress that information.

radioactive substance

James after all the particle dispersement after above ground testing of the 40s and 50s and 60s that same radioactive trash your talking about was in everything! And its still there besides the naturally occurring radioactive stuff thats in all plants,even what we eat! Youve really got to try and come up with better JUNK SCIENCE THAN THAT! Im quite sure your fixing to get RIPPED by a few others..........boy when you open the door to getting your butt kicked you opened an aircraft hanger door this time.......................

1.
What are you suggesting now, Jimbo? Are you suggesting that Schuman is suffering radioactive poisoning? What does any of your blather-fest have to do with Schuman? Oh, that’s right, it’s all just another tobacco industry “conspiracy”.

There are a number of definite, straightforward questions that you have been asked. You have managed to evade addressing any of them. Yet what comes through clearly is that you are a neurotic, bigoted, incompetent, and rabid-antismoking-activist “expert”. There is a constant spouting of irrelevant, self-serving information.

Antismoking fanaticism relies on the routine violation of the fundamental toxicological maxim of “the dose makes the toxicity”. In the hands of fanatics (e.g., you), dosimetry has been brutalized, run over - forward and back - multiple times, and then unceremoniously flung off a cliff. And you, Jimmy, are one of the prime violators.

2.
If that wasn’t enough, you then refer to your buddy-in-violation, Stantonitis Glands, and his “heart-attack miracle” drivel. If there’s any greater fraudster than you, Jimbo, it has to be Stantonitis, and that’s saying something. Who knows, you might even be sharing a jail cell together.

Jimmy, you and your deranged ilk, have already done considerable damage just like your predecessors. Still perplexing is how you impostors are still able to peddle your derangement under the auspices of “science” and “expertise” [giggle]: It is a terrible indictment on the current state of academia. Even more baffling is how you do not already have some lengthy residency in a “correctional” facility. Maybe, there, you would have the time to contemplate your mental state and the psychotherapy that you desperately need.

Most foods and beverages have tens of times more alpha emitters per unit
of weight than water [5]:

* Beer= 390 pCi/liter
* Tap Water= 20 pCi/liter
* Milk= 1,400 pCi/liter
* Salad Oil= 4,900 pCi/liter
* Whiskey= 1,200 pCi/liter
* Brazil Nuts= 14 pCi/g
* Bananas= 3 pCi/g
* Flour= 0.14 pCi/g
* Peanuts 8 Peanut Butter= 0.12 pCi/g
* Tea= 0.40 pCi/g

Further, not only you take in much less of tobacco leaf matter (by
factors into thousands), but unlike most agricultural products, tobacco
leaf is cured and aged, hence even in the little of tobacco leaf matter
you take in, the Po-210 (which has half life 138 days) will be mostly
gone by the time you end up smoking the leaf (a year or two later).

Note that you will also find in antismoking literature theoretical
figures of absorbed radiation (in mrad units) based on a 1960s study
(which was never reproduced, being based on a ridiculous "model"
according to which all of the lifelong inhaled smoke is compressed into
a microscopic cube, few cells large, and permanently stuck, somehow,
onto this handful of poor cells). That often cited 8000 mrad/year (for 2
packs/day smoker) is a bogus antismoking "fact" (by virtue of
repetition) which has been debunked [6] by Colby in several usenet
discussions (see also my post there for additional refs [7]).

In view of
lawsuits against tobacco industry, had anyone been able to validate that
often cited mrad figure, tobacco companies would have been required by
law & EPA regulations to remove Po-210 from tobacco years ago (e.g. by
by just aging it couple years, 97.5% of Po-210 will decay). Similarly,
it would have been trivial to induce lung cancers in lab animals by
exposing them to tobacco smoke (yet antismoking "science" still can't do
it and it still has to rely on blind statistical associations, half a
century later).

References

1. ETS Test data from American Cancer Society and OSHA
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2...

2. NYT Puffing on Polonium, by Robert N. Proctor
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1...

3.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...

4. http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilt...

5. http://www.fusrapmaywood.com/factshee...

6.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=col...

7. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sm...

Polonium in tobacco hoax (tobacco)

Now the rest of the story:

The radiation from tobacco smoke is a red herring for the ignorant.
Whether radioactive atoms are absorbed from fertilizer or from rain
water (picking radioactive fallout after decades of nuclear tests), any
plant and animal will pick them, hence our food is vastly greater source
of that radioactivity simply because smoker inhales 20-50 mg of tobacco
leaf matter per cigarette or 1 gram per pack (of which only 20% is
retained in the lungs). Between food and beverages you consume thousands
times more matter, along with whatever it contains, radioactive atoms or
pesticides or other chemical carcinogens and toxins. (Of course, the
secondary smoke dilutes the intake from tobacco by further factors of
tens of thousands or more. [1])

For example, a recent New York Times article [2] (antismoking as usual)
"Puffing on Polonium" cites 0.04 pCi (unit for # of alpha particle
emitting atoms) inhaled per cigarette, hence 0.8 pCi per pack, call it 1
pCi per pack. A glass of water (250ml) has 3-10 pCi of alpha emitters
[3]. As one might have expected, the New York Times didn't consider it
'fit to print' to inform readers that a glass of water will give you as
many radioactive atoms as 3-10 packs of cigarettes. They even had to
twist the plain fact of 'smoker longevity' [4] in Caucasus into a clumsy
half-truth "tobacco growers’ longevity in the Caucasus", since putting
'smoker' and 'longevity' together must have grated too much on the
author's & editor's ears (the author was a court witness against tobacco
industry).

Mr. Repace? What is this supposed to be? A random grab bag of junk? A scary puppet saying "Boo!"? Do you do this on the stand? When a counsel asks you a specific question about your testimony do you simply grab some totally random piece of information about smoke and blurt it out to try to show that you're an expert?

For the ELEVENTH time in just this thread Mr. Repace, as an expert witness in the Schuman trial, please provide at least two or three solid scientific studies backing up your claim, as expressed in your very first post here, that endothelial dysfunction is caused by low levels of exposure to secondhand smoke such as are relevant to the case of Mr. Schuman.

If you cannot do so, and if you offered such claims under oath either in this proceeding or in past proceedings, I believe your best bet is to immediately and deeply offer a profound apology and full explanation to the courts and clients involved who were scammed by the mistake of placing faith in your "expert" status.

- MJM
P.S. We're also waiting for answers about your "competing interest" in this case: your opposing witness, Mr. Gots, was forthcoming about his wages for testimony: $450/hour. How about you Mr. Repace? And what would happen to your "expert consultant" status and future testimonies if you stood up in court and said, "Sorry! The levels of smoke I measured were so low it'd be crazy to worry about them."? What would such blatant honesty do to your future income?

Not necessarily John. The fact that Mr. Repace seems to be forgetting earlier posts, and displays such a degree of confusion about what he has actually been asked may imply some other, far more fundamental difficulties. That is why I am being so patient in giving him the benefit of the doubt here and restating the fundamental questions so simply and clearly. People suffering from ASDS (AntiSmoking Dysfunction Syndrome as outlined by Stephanie Stahl at: http://www.wispofsmoke.net/recovery.html ) often suffer from some degree of general confusion and cognitive dissonance in this area: they have their "beliefs," very akin to fundamentalist religious beliefs, and simply deny the existence of reality, not only to others but even to themselves, when they are directly challenged.

I've seen Antismokers with this problem before on the internet, though usually not in so severe a form, and certainly not in the case of someone of the professional stature of Mr . Repace in the context of something as important as this trial. It's sad, and destructive, but it can't simply be ignored.

- MJM

1.
Jimbo: “…..exposure to secondhand smoke, which kills 50,000 Americans each year…..”

So, Jimmy, can I assume that if we put you and, say, 100 others of your antismoking buddies (some CDC folk, some ACS folk, some SG folk) in separate rooms, you would all identify the same 50,000 as “killed” by SHS. Puhhhh-leeeez!!!

You guys live in a statistical fantasy world, much removed from actuality, that is only part of your overall mental dysfunction.

2.
Jimbo: “…. which has made his home uninhabitable on an acute basis”.

So, Jimbo, you would have us believe that a neighbor smoking a few cigarettes nearby has made Schuman’s apartment not only uninhabitable but uninhabitable “on an acute basis” – whatever that means. Maybe it means “super-duper” uninhabitable.

Now, Jimmy, there are just a few possibilities here. Maybe Schuman is being exposed (if at all) to a sarin-gas-like agent. Or, maybe Shuman is neurotic, e.g., anxiety disorder. Jimbo, there’s no point asking you which is more likely because you too are neurotic and promoting neurosis. But I would imagine that reasonably mentally-stable people would quickly recognize which is the most likely.

So, Jimbo, I can understand that those suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety/somatization disorders and hypochondria might find exposure or potential exposure to wisps of smoke or even possible remnants of smoke, particularly in the current antismoking fervor, as a “nuisance” or a “danger”. But that simply reflects their dysfunction which would hardly be used to dictate policy.

On the topic of cancers in that era. Public Health utilizing radiation as a preferred treatment inspired a huge increase of cancers that few smoking studies would ever confound as a significant factor, simply because you can't confound anything encased in consensus denial. You have to wonder if the treatments at that time, were also sold by a mandate and responsibility "to protect the Children"?

Tell us again that the tobacco companies knew they were killing people and ignored the facts? The facts actually reveal that no one knew what the effects would be. The link between cancer and ionizing radiation was still being denied by the majority of medical institutions at that time [in self defense]. What about the shoe stores, did they hide their research as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworm_affair

"The broader international context of the Israeli eradication program : at the time, this form of treatment was an accepted treatment method, considered safe (as was x-raying children's in shoe stores at the time) and was employed elsewhere in the world – from Syria and Yugoslavia, to New York/California, Portugal and Sweden.[13][14][15] In fact, irradiation was the recommended protocol at the time and was partially underwritten by UNICEF.[16][17]"

Oh, this is not good. Don’t terrify Jimmy with facts that challenge his fantasy version of the world.

Every antismoker knows that ETS is very cunning, specifically searching them out. ETS wafts in wait. It seems to know who the antismokers are and, with laser-guided-like precision, heads straight for them. Let Jimbo utilize his “expertise” [giggle] in developing his cutting-edge “science” [giggle]. Jim’s currently working on a necklace of garlic, onions and coriander (for the radioactivity) to protect him from that naughty ETS that might search him - the antismoker “victim” - out indoors through the taps, light switches, walls, TV sets, etc.

Magnetic wrote, "Every antismoker knows that ETS is very cunning, specifically searching them out. ETS wafts in wait. It seems to know who the antismokers are and, with laser-guided-like precision, heads straight for them."

You've reminded me of a piece of fun from years past Magnetic:

I'd run across an article in favor of a universal restaurant smoking ban. The article included a statement from a local Antismoker named Ms. Andersen:

"The smoke is more toxic than main-stream smoke. Second-hand smoke travels 50 feet to land in a plate of food that I just paid $25 for."

Her concern brought about the following image:

===
Eeeeviiiiillll ETS skulks down the aisles, past the waiters’ table and the salad cart, past floral bouquets and innocent diners and their children, looking for Andersen... searching for Andersen… the ubiquitous Andersen... Andersen with the big quivering querulous nostrils... Andersen with the oogling oozing outrageously orange olfactory orifices...

## AHHHH!!!! FOUND HER!!!!!! ##

## And **THERE'S** her FOOOOOOOOOOOODDDD!!!!! ##

::jumping into Andersen’s $25 plate of GreaseFries(TM) and rubbing orgasmically all over her oils::

## Ahhhh.... Nothing like a good meal after a smoke.... ##

Signed,
Eeeeviiiiillll
===

Mr. Repace,.don't assume that my moment of levity here has distracted me from continuing to point out your failure in offering even the most basic scientific support for your assertions. See above.

- MJM

Michael, it’s still not clear what Jimbo means by “uninhabitable on an acute basis”. But it sounds like a few extra microscopic particles and barely detectable (with a gadget) nicotine – all uncorroborated - have rendered Schuman’s apartment lifeless: All plant life has withered, the goldfish a belly-up in the tank, paint is peeling off now yellowed walls, and some tumbleweed rolling through the kitchen. The apartment resembles a Moonscape. At night a green glow can be seen from Schuman’s apartment. Now that sounds “uninhabitable on an acute basis”.

I'm reminded of an old newsgroup poster that claimed that he could "smell cigarette smoke from the car ahead of him on the interstate" ... even though his car windows were closed. This poor schmuck must be a relative of Ms. Andersen.

The New Danger of Thirdhand Smoke: Why Passive Smoking Does Not Stop at Secondhand Smoke.
Passive smoking exposure is a topic of great concern for public health because of its well-known adverse effects on human health. Two news articles on this topic were published in the February 2011 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. Lubick (2011) discussed the global health burden of secondhand smoke, and Burton (2011) emphasized a new and alarming consequence of 
smoking in indoor environments—“thirdhand smoke”.
Thirdhand smoke results from residual tobacco smoke pollutants that adhere to surfaces, furnishings, and dust in indoor environments. These pollutants persist long after the clearing of secondhand smoke. They are reemitted into the gas phase or react with oxidants or other compounds present in the environment to form secondary contaminants, some of which are carcinogenic or otherwise toxic for human health (Matt et al. 2011). ….
This question … is of particular concern for evaluating passive smoking exposure in indoor settings, especially in domestic environments. Since numerous countries have introduced smoking bans in enclosed public places, domestic environments have become the main sources of passive smoking exposure (World Health Organization 2007).
Environmental Health Perspectives 119:a422-a422.
Online: 01 October 2011

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103956

Now we’re talking, Jimmy. Your measurements of a few trace remnants of smoke – uncorroborated – and the association to “hazard” (baseless) are what are at issue in the Schuman case. It is the realm of thirdhand “smoke” madness, i.e., scraping the already heavily-scraped bottom of the barrel.

Sorry, Jimbo, but the reputation of neurotic/bigoted antismokers precedes them. You’ve been beaten to the punch, as it were. There is already a piece on the concoction of thirdhand piffle in the previous thread:
http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/secondhand-smoke-trial-moves-to-september

Jimmy, you’re REALLY embarrassing yourself now. An expert, indeed. Puhhh-leeeez!!!!

Mr Repace simple question ........how many people work for the WHO and how are they paid ? Give us an added bonus what is the average wage.

More directly the WHO is basically bankrupt right now! The question is how much does BIG PHARMA pay the WHO each year for its budget. Which is the question asked last year and the WHO wouldnt divulge it!

From what Ive read the FDA recieves over 500 million a year from big pharma for operating expences!

There are so many conflicts of interest going on here its pathetic! The whole bunch should be in prison for ETHICS violations.

Synergy Still Controversial
Synergy is an integral part of our methodology. A majority of scientists support the concept of a radon/tobacco smoke synergistic interaction that is more than additive; we used the conservative 10-fold estimate. Apart from the documentation of synergy between radon and tobacco smoke, however, synergy is largely ignored or virulently contested

Work in the laboratory of endocrinologist John McLachlan at Tulane University, reported by Steven Arnold and others (Science, 7 June 1996, p. 1489) found dramatic synergistic interaction between "hormonelike" chemicals in the environment. They reported that when two pesticides were tested together, their estrogenic activity shot up 160 to 1600 fold. They also found five-fold synergy with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which would have profound environmental implications.

The reaction to the work at Tulane was swift and aggressive. Few papers provoke the kind of response that followed in the scientific community. New studies were promptly done that failed to replicate the synergistic results found by McLachlan. In an unusual move, Dr. McLachan withdrew the synergy paper. From press reports one might conclude that synergy was proven not to exist. However, in the retraction letter that appeared in the July 25th issue of Science (1996) it is clear that the basic idea of synergy was not withdrawn, but rather the pronounced levels initially reported.

Funny how RADON is proven to cause cancer,so what do they do is try and tie smoking to cancer thru high levels of radon! Yet it seems synergism isnt possible according to the papers Ive read. When the 3rd hand smoke MAGICIANS went to work they just kept cranking up the levels of probably everyhing in the natural environment until their equipment got a 1 nanogram reading of NNN if I remember right! Funny thing here is the use of a chamber to CREATE the claimed hazzard in unreal conditions of real life!

Yet in real life we find that fried fish and other foods create 1000's of times more of the same stuff......You advocates are a real dream!

Mr. Repace, for the TWELFTH time, I will again ask you to provide scientific studies to back up your contention, as clearly expressed in your first and primary post to this thread, that the such levels of smoke exposure such as measured in Mr. Schuman's apartment, have ANYTHING to do with endothelial dysfunction. Your response to some of the other very direct questions you've been asked here would also be appreciated.

I can now understand how you may have spent 30 highly paid hours on the witness stand in the Schuman case. Did opposing counsel have to ask you EVERY simple question over a dozen times before you actually answered? Did you go off on long tangential rambles pulling up loosely associated topics, bits of trivia, olfactophobically based inner terrors, and perhaps your last week's dry cleaning bills before the judge would finally cut you off with threats of contempt charges? I'm beginning to think that your $4,000 court transcript probably has less real substance to it than a random page snatched out of yesterday's National Enquirer.

Mr. Repace,

1) The issue in this case had nothing to do with "thirdhand smoke"

and

2) This "new" research on thirdhand smoke that you offer doesn't look to be much better than the research I analyzed at the Global Health Law site at:

http://globalhealthlaw.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/third-hand-smoke/#comment-52

Was Mr. Schuman perhaps planning to extend his apartment lease for the next 300 trillion years?

- MJM

Symptoms of OlfactophobiaThe list of signs and symptoms mentioned in various sources for Olfactophobia includes the 11 symptoms listed below:

•Irrational fear or dislike of smells
•Feeling of panic
•Feeling of terror
•Feeling of dread
•Rapid heartbeat
•Shortness of breath
•Nausea
•Dry mouth
•Trembling
•Anxiety
•Extreme avoidance measures taken

http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/o/olfactophobia/symptoms.htm

•Extreme avoidance measures taken

Schuman had his home made airtight! This man has been suffering for years and now Repace like a fire and brimstone preacher has the poor man thinking a tad bit of smoke will kill him!

Come on Jimmy ! the Big Guy upstairs is watching and 13 is an unlucky number. Hurry up the Big Guy is tough on people who procrastinate in public .

You can't knock a guy for capturing a niche market opportunity. Jimmy has found a wonderful working environment [bathed in cigarette smoke] which affords travel, free accommodation in some of the largest entertainment venues you can imagine and he gets paid for the effort. MJM inquired earlier about the levels of remuneration for doing God's work. To make such inquiries is unfair, he found it first and if others find out what he makes they will be flocking to join in as competition. Just imagine how the guy felt who invented rolling the bones to predict the future and watched as so many profited, by ripping off his schtick or the guy who discovered that pythons like the sound of the flute and swayed to the rhythm, if anchored to a basket. Jimmy might have to think about expanding his product line and sell global warming cow bells and reefer madness straight jackets, if competition gets too extreme.

Continues...

Why can't we just live and let live here. Jimmy never asked for a life in the spotlight [much] Compensation isn't the real point here, many like Jimmy, actually take payments of goats and chickens, what is important is getting the job done. What he will charge to blood-let a chicken or shake his rattle to ward off evil smoke demons, is simply beyond the point and moves to an act of poor manners to even ask. Jimmy is offering a community service, in the spirit of Public Health who used to just warn us about the approaching evil. Jimmy and his crew have taken the limits of megaphones and big bass drums, to a more efficient venue in bold print. If a little exaggeration along the way to embellish those headlines, can increase the viewership and the receipts at the gate, who could blame him, its not like he is doing anything we don't see every day on the used car lots or carneys selling Ginsu knives or vegetable choppers . The guy is just trying to make a living doing what he does best.

Here's to Jimmy who lives in the spirit of the true entrepreneur.

Smoking causes amputations although the experts are still a little shy, discussing it on cigarette packages.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-m-blitz/smoking-amputation_b_882739.html

http://www.padcoalition.org/about-pad/smoking/

"Quitting smoking may be the most important life saving step people with P.A.D. can take. And, it is not too late. Research shows that people with P.A.D. can lower the risk of heart attack, stroke or death when they quit smoking. Plus, you will enjoy these other health rewards:

Your blood pressure will be lower in just a few days.
You will reduce your risk of foot ulcers, eye problems, nerve damage and kidney disease (if you have diabetes).
You will lower your risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, lungs and bladder.
In one year after quitting, your blood flow and breathing will be improved and your coughing and shortness of breath will be reduced.
You will protect your children and grandchildren from second-hand smoke.
Best of all, you will live longer and better."

Only someone who smokes, can expect to enjoy the benefits of quitting. Non smokers expossed to tobacco smoke even a whiff, will be damaged for life.

It's a fact of consensus medicine, just ask any Public health expert, they will swear this to be a fact. Or understandably, face the ire of their promotional stakeholder peers.

Public Health politics vs the reality for Donald Duck;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZcs1SHVbz0&feature=player_popout

Science; example:
Maximum Lifetime Exposure x Dose-Response Relationship = Maximum Individual Lifetime Risk

Palaver; example:
There is no safe level of secondhand smoke.

Fine particulate matter exposure from both ambient air pollution and secondhand cigarette smoke is associated with larger risks of cardiovascular mortality than would be expected on the basis of linear extrapolations of the relative risks from active smoking. Pope et al. directly assessed the shape of the exposure-response relationship between cardiovascular mortality and fine particulates from cigarette smoke and ambient air pollution. Adjusted relative risks of mortality were plotted against estimated average daily dose of fine particulate matter from cigarette smoke along with comparison estimates for secondhand cigarette smoke and air pollution. There were substantially increased cardiovascular mortality risks at very low levels of active cigarette smoking and smaller but significant excess risks even at the much lower exposure levels associated with secondhand cigarette smoke and ambient air pollution.
Conclusions—Relatively low levels of fine particulate exposure from either air pollution or secondhand cigarette smoke are sufficient to induce adverse biological responses increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease mortality. The exposure-response relationship between cardiovascular disease mortality and fine particulate matter is relatively steep at low levels of exposure.
From: Cardiovascular Mortality and Exposure to Airborne Fine Particulate Matter and Cigarette Smoke - Shape of the Exposure-Response Relationship.
(Pope et al., Circulation. 2009;120:941-948.)

James;

I believe I see the problem and the resulting lack of credibility in what you are trying very hard to promote. We are told every day for decades by the same group declaring themselves "experts in their field", without qualification or reservation, that if you smoke for 40 years, 25 cigarettes every day and quit, your health risks will decline immediately and eventually will be equivalent to the health risks of a lifetime non smoker. Now you come along with a new promotion, that a non smoker who is expossed to trace exposures at any level, to second hand tobacco smoke, knowing that a smoker would be much more expossed than any non smoker, will result in permanent damage and increased health risks, which eventually be higher than someone who smoked their entire lives and quit?

Do you see the problem here?

Can you offer some level of understanding or justification? To explain how on earth this could be possible, that someone actually has to smoke, in order to find the same health benefits, that non smokers will never enjoy?

All joking aside, realistically you have to explain your position here, or loose all hope of finding any credibility among those who are looking at your evidence, particularly when your name appears as a co-author on most of the studies you cite as evidence.

"The exposure-response relationship between cardiovascular disease mortality and fine particulate matter is relatively steep at low levels of exposure. "

"Relatively steep" is really saying something here, as an absolute in exaggerations. The rate of incline would have to be 89 degrees or less, if everything else they tell us is true. On an x/y plot you couldn't even see it on the printed page. Unless you expressed it beginning at the center of the page with all other perspectives going forward in time.

We were talking about cigarette smoke and "fine particulate" is not exclusive to the topic at hand, so, no James, you will not get a free pass on this one, because cigarette smoke has a defined and as you will no doubt agree; a unique physical description, as fine particulate, which is in no where similar to ultra fine diesel exhaust particulate or a host of particulate descriptions, from thousands of other sources, which are known to be much more dangerous. More dangerous to most of us, who look at the situation with both eyes open, considering what is within the realm of real world possibilities. On the biological plausibility front; Heart disease takes decades to develop. No where in the research does it indicate that cigarette smoke has any ability to take a short cut and eliminate the necessary dimension of timeline, so no, every whiff is not dangerous or toxic, to anyone expressing less than an hysterical mindset. Long term effects are just that "long term" requiring a level of exposure and a "long term" exposure period. Those described exposures would not include a few minutes or even a few hours sitting next to a smoker in a bar, which are quickly mitigated and inconsequential in the norm.

The latest evidence?

http://www.procor.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=1039385

"Mortality risks associated with PM 2.5 were estimated for a subcohort of this study that lived in monitored areas. Cox proportional hazards were estimated for ischemic heart disease, cardiovascular, and cardiopulmonary disease deaths. This analysis is restricted to a follow-up of approximately six years. The average dose of PM 2.5 from cigarette smoking has been estimated to be between 7 to 17.5 mg per cigarette. Long term exposure average PM2.5 exposure is estimated to be 20µg/m3 for low to moderate secondhand smoke exposure."

http://fhssfaculty.byu.edu/Pages/cap3.aspx

A "seminal study" plants the seed for future research. The word estimate was used in the cited study in it's own description, to define all of the factors at hand. Is this a foundation of anything, beyond hysterical nonsense or preordained conclusions, formed in bong logic?

Truly an excellent example of paying the piper and calling it science.

So repeating MJM's question; Do the measured levels in your clients apartment reach the daily average norms "estimated at 20µg/m3 for low to moderate secondhand smoke exposure." And one would have to assume; below which, the researcher found no reason for concern, else he would have expanded his estimates to lower regions of long term exposures to increase the legitimacy of the numbers he estimated.

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/

PROHIBITION
Premieres October 2nd, 3rd & 4th, 2011
at 8 PM on PBS
CHECK LOCAL LISTINGS

PROHIBITION is a three-part, five-and-a-half-hour documentary film series directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick that tells the story of the rise, rule, and fall of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the entire era it encompassed.

Prohibition was intended to improve, even to ennoble, the lives of all Americans, to protect individuals, families, and society at large from the devastating effects of alcohol abuse. But the enshrining of a faith-driven moral code in the Constitution paradoxically caused millions of Americans to rethink their definition of morality

Sounds to me like the "Smokers' Rights" goons from FORCES who posted on this blog are a pack of total frauds fronting for Big Tobacco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqZgSaBkxVI

JohnE--Thanks for the tip on the prohibition shows. Amazing similarities to smoking bans. One drop of alcohol can destroy a whole family!
---------
Yesterday's presentation by Mr. Repace is filled with terms like "larger risks...the relative risks...adjusted relative risk...significant excess risks...relatively low levels...increasing the risk". That terminology might fly with someone getting their fortune told, but maybe it was acceptance of similar untethered relative risks that contributed to Repace's casino information malfunction as mentioned in my Sept. 17 comment.

Repace's steadfast refusal to quantify Schuman's risk factors is consistent with allowing no chinks in the "no safe level" armor of the smoking ban movement. A while back I pointed out some erroneous SHS handout information to a state health dept. lady and she said, quite dismissively, that it didn't matter because the surgeon general said there was no safe level of secondhand smoke. Yikes!

"Sounds to me like the "Smokers' Rights" goons from FORCES who posted on this blog are a pack of total frauds fronting for Big Tobacco:"

I can assure you it is simply that ages old paranoia seepingt therough your light siockets and under your door. Nothing to be afaid of Jimmy becasue your fears are not real. They have pills to help you wirth that maybe you could arrange a barter deal and you won't even haver to pay for them.

Good luck with that... BTW I do not represent Forces, or they me.
I certainly don't represent the opportunists you refer to as "the tobacco industry". My opinions, as are many like mine,based in following the "'Public health industry" and their actions, which I find unacceptable and criminal in nature. It is high time that they were dragged before a senate sub-commitee to see what they have hiding in their closets, as part two of the Tobacco papers repository.

As an indictment of the ideological movement who believes; Hitler had the right idea when dealing with health issues.

Sounds to me like the "Smokers' Rights" goons from FORCES who posted on this blog are a pack of total frauds fronting for Big Tobacco:

Gee,Jimmy whats a forces...................Big tobacco you say,hell I wish theyd give me some free smokes!

Times are getting so hard even my neighborhood bootlegger wants a COLA increase!

1.
Jimbo: “Sounds to me like the ‘Smoker’s Rights’ goons…….”

Jimmy….. your artistic eminence [bow, curtsy]….. that sounds like a bit of a hissy fit (also known in some parts of the world as a “dummy-spit”). It must be incredibly difficult for a superior being such as yourself [tee hee] to endure the riff-raff that dare question the creations of your awe-inspiring intellect and rapier-like wit [giggle]: It must be painful to see your house-of-cards “science” teetering on the brink of collapse. Jimbo, it is unfortunately a burden that the artistically gifted, such as yourself, must endure for their art. As the pre-eminent exponent of the “Neurotic Genre” of statistical chicanery/artistry (i.e., Neo-Shysterism), I’m sure you will rebound from this passing hiccup, able to conjure even greater dangers from even more diluted instances of ETS – or even non-instances of ETS. You just inspire such confidence.

So, it is indeed easy, Jim, to forgive your passing tantrum, typical of great artists. Just don’t forget to take your medication, don your gas mask, dust yourself off, and let’s proceed.

2.
For starters, Jimmy, you should demand the respect that you obviously deserve. Who does the Judge think he is, believing that he controls the courtroom? You are the expert, the important luminary: You’re The Artiste. You should demand that, upon entering the courtroom, all should be upstanding, a red carpet supplied for your walking pleasure together with a trumpet fanfare. The Judge should address you as “your expertship” or “your VIPness” or “your extraordinary importantness”. When you are comfortably seated on your throne, you can signal the remainder of the mere mortals, including the Judge, that they too can be seated. You can then edify the ignorant masses. Your pearls of wisdom [uh…hum] could even be televised by every major TV network. The greater the number of people familiar with your thinking, the better.

So Mr. Repace, after being clearly asked A DOZEN SEPARATE TIMES on this blog to provide scientific evidence in the form of substantive studies showing that the endothelial dysfunction he claimed in his first post is caused by the secret but microscopic levels of smoke that he measured in Mr. Schuman's apartment has responded with this:

"Sounds to me like the "Smokers' Rights" goons from FORCES who posted on this blog are a pack of total frauds fronting for Big Tobacco:"

Exactly the sort of response one would expect from a "professional expert" in a scientific field, no?

Mr. Repace, if I was a lawyer at this point I think *I'd* be knocking on Mr. Schuman's door with an eye aimed at you. You represent yourself as an expert, an "international secondhand smoke consultant," and yet you are completely and totally unable to answer even the simplest and most basic of questions asking you to support your position.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

- MJM

In the old days somebody like Jimmy would have been TARRED and FEATHERED then shipped out of town on the first rail car load of sheep!

Who ever paid for his fib should also be ashamed ......but then again maybe they are used to it ............

Nothing mitigates health risks more directly than cures.

Where are the Public health advocates in relation to cures?

Far behind all other venues of scientific achievement over the past hundred years. The rate of mortality by cancer, per hundred thousand population has not moved in over sixty years. That tells us a lot about the corruption of stakeholder advocacy science [The Public Health Industry]. It is a faith based, directed morals, movement, growing out of all reasonable proportions and ultimately heading nowhere, at a tremendous cost by all "associated" perspectives.

Do a plot on an x/y [rate/time] chart, defining the Public Health conclusions over the past decade, expressing the risks of tobacco smoke by exposure rates, from chain smoking on down. What you will see is a chart with a definite pattern starting at the center of the page, with dose response in the norms of comparative health risk assesments by other toxins, all moving forward in time, and tobacco smoke as a unique health risk, at less than an 89 degree angle moving backward.

I propose that there exists a direct inverse association, between advocacy science or what is loosely described as "Public Health" and the rapid declines of scientific credibility.

The impossible has been achieved in medical consensus, Is this science? Sustainable? Or more correctly a criminal act?

Time will tell, as the truth slowly rises back to the top.

Eugenics, Cleptocracy, Reefer madness, The 18th amendment, The Clan or Facism, all are denounced today as entitled by their financial couruption of processes and ultimate lack of humanity in process. "Public Health" which promotes all of the same social ideologies, now belongs on the list.

Mr. Repace has repeatedly denied Mr. McFadden's request for evidence of probable harm in Schuman's case. Repace even challanges McFadden to explain what the "safe level for exposure to tobacco smoke is" (9/23/11). I wonder if Mr. Repace himself will even explain where "Safe" falls on the Air Quality Index, which runs from "Good" to "Hazardous"? Mr. Repace, can you at least answer that?

Repace is stuck in his own timewarp of the 20th century where tornado strength winds were required to remove the harmless whifs of second hand smoke. The rest of the world has moved rapidly into the 21st century and in doing so has embraced scientifically proven technology by way of Plasmacluster Ion Technology and CCFT.

http://www.airmanager.com/

He continues to rip off his sponsors but is now being exposed as he struggles to come to terms with the truth.

Skycat, and you'll notice that I did indeed, politely and pointedly, respond to Mr. Repace's request promptly. And you've noted he was unable to respond in kind.

Re the Good to Hazardous thing though: It's important to remember two things:

1) The EPA's OWN GUIDELINES forbid exactly what most antismoking advocates, and quite likely Mr. Repace, an ex-EPA employee, in the present instance, do with them -- pretending that short term measurements can be compared for meaning to the EPA's 24 hour guidelines.

and

2) The EPA measurements refer to PM 2.5 produced by high temperature commercial incineration, chemical/industrial processes, and automotive pollution: all of which involve actual particles with chemical makeups distinctively different from what is produced by the quiet burning of a few leaves in a scrap of paper. What Mr. Repace is doing is similar to taking a teaspoon of sugar crystals and, because they are of the same size, declaring that they are just as deadly as a teaspoon of arsenic crystals.

Perhaps I should invite him over to share a cup of tea some day? (I'll be happy to add the sweeteners...)

- MJM

Maybe it was diesel fumes in the guys apartment huh Repace LOL
"James Repace, the secondhand smoke scientist and plaintiff’s expert witness, took the stand to clarify some earlier points and rebut the testimony of the defense’s expert witness, Dr. Ronald Gots.

He reiterated his belief that that the doubling of particulates recorded by the monitor inside Schuman’s unit while Darko Popovic was smoking outside — proved that smoke was entering the residence.

Despite the monitor having previously recorded the same amount of possible carcinogenic particulates in the air in the smoke-free courthouse as it had in Schuman’s unit, Repace stuck with his claim. He said the air in the courthouse may have been polluted by a number of diesel buses operating outside. "

Found this interesting, more on our Mr Repace

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2419729/posts

The so called Forces Goons better known as self funded Pro Choice Groups have now seen off both James Repace and Simon Chapman (Globalink) in debate over the past 3 weeks. On each occasion they have resorted to forms of personal attacks when failing to answer direct questions.

wait a minute, isn't repace the buddy of that airplane mechanic who plays health expert Stanton Glantz whose ANR is funded by RWJF? whoa, talk about madd scientists LOL

"Despite the monitor having previously recorded the same amount of possible carcinogenic particulates in the air in the smoke-free courthouse as it had in Schuman’s unit, Repace stuck with his claim. He said the air in the courthouse may have been polluted by a number of diesel buses operating outside. "

Tsk Tsk...
Mr. Repace knows full well, that cigarette smoke particulate, is much much larger than ultra fine or sub micron Diesel particulate, one has to wonder about his swearing to tell the whole truth.

Lying by omission is lying just the same.

Yes, thats the team ... a few months back dear old Stan requested a "conversation" which was granted and then spent some 32 minutes attempting to pin the funding by Big Tobacco on the very successful Pro Choice Group in the Netherlands created by the Bar Owners Association. He failed miserably and has not made any further requests for dialogue but you can see that this is their only way of attacking Groups presenting the truth.

Can you just immagine what the increased health risk would be, of inhaling a class one carciniogenic particulate, which is 250 times smaller than cigarette smoke particulate. With both inhaled in the same measured volumes?

Mr Repace was not only short on informing the whole truth if he contends that the air in his clients apartment is dangerous, the much more deadly hazard he ignorred, to sell his wares in the courtroom, should be seen as an attempt to kill everyone in that courtroom, by depraved indifference.

But only if he truly believes what he claims. Intent is the kicker.

Sorry to jump in so late in the game but I've been busy fighting the closure of the RYO shops. It is quite humorous to see Mr Repace's ad-hominem and insults, tobacco trolls, nicotine addicts etc etc etc and how he dismisses colleges who may have done studies for big T and casually ignores his own activism. Especially since he and his fellow activist released the questionable 1992 EPA report. It is also of interest that these same activist used the same questionable methodology in the 2006 SG report with only a slight mention of it on page 21. But the main reason I am here is you never answered my question about the placement of your equipment in the kitchen, of course it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this was done to gin up the numbers.

Marshall P Keith

The Tobacco Control Goons are at it again ... spreading fear where none exists

http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/2011/10/tb-as-smoking-related-disease.html

I have mostly stayed out of this particular fray but upon watching the video referenced by Repace i am utterly appalled. This is an absolute misrepresentation by omission in order to mislead the public.

According to the video page's content: "Uploaded by ANRandANRF on Jul 27, 2010"

2010!! Implying it's current. Yet, aside from the short attention to FORCES with no proof to back up their accusation, they zero in on National Smokers Alliance (NSA) -- a group that has been defunct for about a decade! They'd have the public think that in the last 10 years -- which is when smoking bans and cigarette taxes began in earnest -- that the NSA has been at the forefront of battles that have occured across the country.

The best they can do after that is for Glantz to make a blanket statement with no names and no evidence that would amount to no more than slander were they named which is why they aren't.

Bill,Bill,Bill. Fources Goons? Really? I seem to recall most of the insults coming from Mr Replaced, including calling colleges "Usual Suspects" I suggest you read a piece I did called Meta-analysis Science or a tool for advocacy" It should give a hint who the real usual suspects are!

This video is criminal. It's all you accuse everyone else of and more. At least when the tobacco companies (who I'm not here to advocate for) were called to testify they did. When Koop and Kessler were called to testify they refused:

"Dr. C. Everett Koop, the former Surgeon General, and Dr. David A. Kessler, the former Commissioner of Food and Drugs, today abruptly canceled their Congressional testimony on legislation to regulate tobacco scheduled for Thursday morning after learning that they would be required to testify under oath."

The NY Times goes on to say that Dr. Kessler "left no doubt" that the reason he wouldn't be appearing before Congress is that he would be "required to take an oath."

(New York Times, 3-5-98, p. A15, "2 Antismoking Witnesses Cancel Testimony")

At the most, I can thank you for directing me to evidence that I would gladly take to lawmakers to show them the extent of the Prohibitionist's deception. A clear and cut case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)

For any of you bemused Greenbelter's who are trying to follow this debate, here is the referenced "Repace Tornado Winds Study". http://www.repace.com/pdf/iaqashrae.pdf

And here is historian Christopher Snowden's critique of Mr. Repace's calculations, "James Repace Thinks Of a Number". http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=38

Other Related Resources Funded by RWJF

Julia Carol received a 2001 Innovator Combating Substance Abuse award from RWJF to expand a Tobacco Industry Tracking Database and make it available on the Internet. The database provides information to help individuals and organizations expose and counter tobacco industry interference with public health efforts. (See her Programee Profile.)
James L. Repace, M.Sc., received a 2002 Innovator Combating Substance Abuse award from RWJF to test whether nonsmoking sections and ventilation systems in restaurants could protect nonsmoking patrons from inhaling second-hand smoke. (See his Programee Profile about how he secretly measured second-hand smoke in restaurants and what he found.)
Jack E. Henningfield, Ph.D., received a 2003 Innovator Combating Substance Abuse award from RWJF to establish a systematic approach to bring tobacco-addiction science to the attention of policy-makers. (See his Programee Profile.)
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=63795

Lying, and or omitting data when it suits their cause, makes these once reputable organizations the sleaziest people lurking about in city halls, county commission, and state legislative offices.

By the way, below is the $300,000.00 Mr. James Repace received from Nicoderm interests at RWJF, so we know his financial motivation.....what's your Bob?
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=21651

Oh, and look here, this was Bob Moffit of the American Lung Association's motivation......$99 million from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Nicoderm affiliate).
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=14912&ia=143
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/american-lung-association-of-mn-and.html

Sorry Bill, I didn't realize you were quoting Mr Tornado. So I guess The so called professional (Mr Repace) who is reduced to insults and ad-hominem attacks, but as we all know such tactics are a sign of weakness not strength.

JR gave sworn testimony, that conflicted with the testimony of another on the grounds that his detractor was influenced by financial corruption and above objections, his accusation was allowed to stand as evidence to legitimize his own case. He failed to fully disclose his many financial receipts over decades, by a larger directly competing industry, who are funding his medical misanthropy. Consistent with the generally accepted practice of late, of those who call themselves "Public Health experts" to treat disease with neglect and defamation of their peers and the general Public at large, be it global warming, fat pandemics, flu pandemics or new tech devices which use up so much of our "productivity" defined days. Misanthropy is the chosen stick of Public Health distinction, in place of the more direct means of research, improved treatments and discovery of cures. Is this truly a sane environment, of medicine or science to any level or degree?

When one dollar is invested in misanthropy, it becomes one dollar no longer available to enrich the lives of others, by the discovery of medical cures and treatments. No small wonder that the companies who would loose the most by the advancement of medicine, are so willing to throw such a large donation into the ring. The investment becomes a negative force and a detractor to human development, while funding that which serves personal comforts to a much larger degree than it will ever serve the much heralded common good.

They tell us as their entitlement that half of smokers will die of smoking related diseases which should be a signal to those dedicated to those issues that more needs to be done. The other half of smokers apparently won't die of smoking related diseases, leading to the average that is not that much different than anyone else. So do smokers deserve to be the recipients of such abusive treatment by those who should legitimately be in their corner, if any humanity concern was real? They tell us that 450,000 die because of smoking, which carries a tremendous taint of political deceit and malfeasance, when we understand that the vast majority of those so called "cause by" cancer and heart disease mortalities are occurring beyond the age of 65 when age is a much larger factor that needs to ignored deliberately, in order to convince a gullible public that smoking related diseases among children should be a major cause for concern. Without those post 65 numbers, the link between smoking and smoking related diseases all but disappears. What else is being ignored is the real threat the 10s of thousands of chemicals off gassing from industry and the most obvious risks by hundreds of millions of tons of sub micron particulate produced every year by the burning of coal and oil or the remnants of nuclear testing all are rendered benign,

in the public consciousness, in the face of a promoted 450,000 "caused" by smoking alone. With not a single death to their credit which will be permitted in public statements, in support of the larger lies.

A memory comes to mind when a call was sent out to Doctors, to avoid smoking in front of patients and to rid medical institutions of the sight of medical practitioners smoking "To lead by example" Who knew that the example would eventually gravitate to setting an example of Misanthropy and the divisions of hatred would evolve into a moral obligation, all will have to accept without question, or be cast into the pit of infamy, amid the cheers of their fellows.

Ask a doctor if he believes people should be treated as a disease, that is a contagion that harms others. It would be insane to make such a statement not to mention highly injurious to their professional reputation.

Now consider their actions over the past century. Let the evidence of what they do believe, although rarely admit, speak for itself.

1.
Jimmy, where are you? You’re not crying in a corner somewhere? Come back. Let’s hear some more of your cutting-edge “science”, some more of that legendary “expertise”. While you’re sulking, Jim, allow me to tell a little story about a greedy fanatic named Jimbo Rapacious. He might sound familiar to you.

The entire antismoking house-of-cards rests squarely on the delusional idea of “no safe level” of tobacco smoke. Jimbo refers to this nonsense from the Surgeon-General Report (2010). However, the idea of “no safe level” did not originate with the SG. Many of the deranged ideas of Tobacco Control can be found from its World Conferences on Smoking & Health. Every three or four years the fanatics get together to advance their derangement amongst much backslapping and hors d’oeuvres.

2.
One of the earliest references to “no safe level” was in 1992:

Working Papers in Support of the 8th World Conference on Tobacco or Health: Building a Tobacco-Free World. March 30 - April 3, 1992
Buenos Aires, Argentina
The scientific evidence linking ETS to death and disease is clear and overwhelming : There is no safe level of exposure for the carcinogens found in tobacco smoke. Victims of ETS are called involuntary smokers or passive smokers . The only way to protect people from the dangers of ETS is to keep tobacco smoke out of our indoor air . The prevention of involuntary exposure to ETS should be a priority for tobacco control advocates worldwide. (p.79)
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hoc28a99

It requires very little to understand the antismoking/tobacco mentality. The goal is to progressively ban where smoking can occur, beginning with the indoors and progressing to the outdoors. With this goal at the forefront, the issue for the fanatics is to figure out how to contort information, torture statistics, stretch credibility, and manipulate policy-makers towards this end.

3.
Notable from these 1992 “working papers” is that it is referring to the “scientific evidence” as “clear and overwhelming”. Yet it was nearly a year before the [fraudulent, agenda-driven] EPA (1992/3) report on ETS (Jimbo also played a part in this fraud-fest of a report). Further, the very title of the working papers – Building a Tobacco-Free World – indicates its social-engineering intent; to eradicate tobacco-use from the world. The idea of SHS “danger” is a concocted one as a means to that end. To firstly remove smoking from indoors, nonsmokers and policy makers had to be convinced that such a step was not “social-engineering” but a measure to “protect” nonsmokers from the “danger” of smoke exposure. Notice, too, that the outdoors didn’t figure at all. The “danger” was purported to exist indoors that had to be eradicated.

And it didn’t begin with “no safe level”. In earlier years, the argument was that it would take very expensive filtration/ventilation equipment to make the indoors “safe” from ETS. The fanatics figured that no-one would be prepared to spend so much just to allow smoking on their premises. Yet people were willing to consider ventilation equipment and it wasn’t as expensive as indicated. So the fanatics had to quickly change the “argument”. In some parts of the world this is referred to as shifting the goalposts, and is a frequent activity of the fanatics.

4.
No, squealed the fanatics, we’ve just noticed that the ventilation equipment can’t remove every trace of ETS. If there is any remnant of smoke, it’s not safe because there’s [fraudulent claim] “no safe level” of ETS. And Jimbo knows all about this because, to keep the obscene levels of funding coming his way, he was charged with demonstrating, with his peculiar brand of “science”, why ventilation equipment just can’t do the job (see Godber/WHO Blueprint for how Jimbo and his buddies – Shysters R Us – took over the board of ASHRAE). And this was a time for Jimbo to shine, to give us an insight into the magnitude of his derangement.

Jimmy R. claimed “Reduction of the risk of secondhand smoke exposure for Burswood Casino Staff to acceptable levels would require tornado like air exchange rates greater than 120,000 air changes per hour, or more than 3400 times the highest rates proposed by Lincolne Scott in its ventilation technology scheme for the Burswood Casino.” (p.2)
http://www.acosh.org/art/critical_evaluation.pdf

5.
Why would the claim that a few particulates and barely-detectable trace-levels of nicotine have rendered Schuman’s apartment “uninhabitable on an acute basis” appear to be exceptionally absurd? Jimbo is already notorious for the absurd. Why is his Shuman claim any more absurd than his “ventilation” insanity where he claimed that the only way to get that pesky ETS to an ‘acceptable’ level indoors is to have ventilation power (tornado-like) that can also suck customers, the table cloths, the tables and other furniture, the espresso machine, the floor tiles and maybe a few feet into the bare earth up the ventilator extraction chute? Given that there are currently no for-restaurant/bar-use tornado-producing ventilation systems at this time – or maybe never, given their ‘impracticality’ (particularly for customers), Jimbo the Magnificent concludes that there is ‘no safe level’ of ETS indoors – ‘best practice’ is to remove exposure completely through bans.

The goal of the antismoking fanatic is to ALWAYS and ONLY conclude that the “best practice” is to ban smoking.

6.
We can see what’s occurring in the Schuman case. By invoking the concocted idea of “no safe level”, Jimarangus, and his deranged buddies, has convinced himself that all he has to do is demonstrate with his nifty gadget that there is some (even the slightest) evidence (remnants – uncorroborated) of ETS and, if there is, voila, presto – it’s “not safe”. This is the crèche-level “reasoning” that has detrimentally affected societies around the world and given rise to this still ongoing court case. Only worse is that many still can’t see it.

It is also easy to comprehend how this idea of “no safe level” makes tobacco smoke look not only different but extraordinarily different to anything on earth; something incredibly “dangerous” on a par with a bio-weapon. It is not surprising that those who lap-up the rhetoric demonstrate neurosis such as anxiety/somatization disorders and hypochondria who then irrationally demand protection. This state-sponsored ideological crusade is promoting mental dysfunction that then has social, legal, and political ramifications.

7.
And it doesn’t stop there. While early (1992) invocations of “no safe level” concerned only the indoors with no reference to outdoors, “justification” is now required for outdoor bans which are part of the way to the “tobacco-free world”. So international secondhand smoke consultants such as Jimorogo are now further torturing the already hyper-abused concept of “no safe level” to also apply outdoors. It’s just stretching the absurd a little further. What’s a little more absurdity amongst the deranged? If there’s any evidence of smoke outdoors, it’s “not safe” declare the pontificators of poop (e.g., Jimbo). The only coherent question at this time is how did we get to such a degenerate state.

Did you enjoy that based-on-fact story, Jimbo?

"Implementation of all effective tobacco control policies requires sustained unwavering governmental commitment. The short-term political costs may seem substantial, but the potential health gains are huge.""

Imposing the will of the people, in a democracy where the leaders are elected to represent that will, is a dangerous game for any Politician.

One that will never go without consequence, in the eventual label they well deserve, as the Nanny state representatives, known as paternalists who more precisely resemble the current political representatives of Hitler's old school ideologies. For a Conservative it is the extremes of the Neo-con stereotype and For the Liberals it is as far from the Left as you could possibly go without calls for incarceration. And for a progressive?

Business as usual.

Repace science is largely invested in the ideal, that if we place a nano-gram of human carcinogenic substance on a battleship that Battleships qualify as human carcinogenic substances in their totality.

He ignored the fact that tobacco smoke is largely derived of water and that the human carcinogens he is screaming about, exist in such minor quantities, they would never raise concerns for the majority of us who remain sane on the issue. The moist effective way of reducing the risks of cancerous toxins has always been dilution to a point they can no longer be detected. His plan is to seek them out and exaggerate the measures in order to define them as a static substance, which can then be used as a stable quantity in order to justify his many statistical stunts. He knows as we all should know that tobacco smoke begins to change within a micro-second after it leaves the end of a cigarette the many [5000 deadly toxins] possible types of tobacco and ingredients they might contain suggests any defined quantity or predictable;e description is well beyond insanity to even produce in the minds eye let alone anything worthy of predicting harms. Every ingredient has a unique chemical structure and characteristics when heated and cooled or when in the presence of other chemicals, to make all these wildly exaggerated conclusions in respect to stable tobacco smoke, with what he infers is scientific expertise, has abandoned all that he was taught in the areas of science and physics

1.
A little more on the “expoyt”, Jimbo.

Here’s a website that Jim is partly responsible for, engaging in shameless self-promotion:
http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/researchers

Just some of the blather:

“This web site was created by four research scientists [Wayne Ott, Neil Klepeis, James Repace, Lance Wallace], who are experts in secondhand smoke. Please see the list below and also follow the links on the sidebar for more information on the website contributors.

We started this website to help educate the public.

TobaccoSmoke.Org is not affiliated with any particular university or industry group. Instead, we scientists created this site on our personal time, and we are entirely responsible for its contents. Our goal is to present the scientific story of exposure to secondhand smoke as accurately and completely as possible.”

2.
Got that? These are self-professed “experts” in SHS, i.e., “Shysters R Us”. Jimbo specifically refers to himself as “an internationally recognized expert and consultant in secondhand smoke exposure and risk”. (Puhhhh-leeeeez!!) All of them feed off MSA funding such as FAMRI. This is money extorted from smokers to specifically conduct antismoking research. Competence and integrity are essentially strangers in antismoking research where the overriding theme is to arrive at the “right” [antismoking] conclusion.

And they’re not just after the indoors. The four neurotic/bigoted amigos are after the outdoors too. Here’s a quick glimpse into the derangement:
http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/outdoor-tobacco-smoke-study
Check out all the vacuous claims made at the bottom of the page. It’s all inflammatory political activism/advocacy masqueraded as “science”.

The critical problem is that these guys are either engineers or physicists (not that they are necessarily good at these either). The other major shyster, Glantz, also has an engineering background. Between them they have no psychological insight, least of all into their own considerable mental dysfunction. They don’t have a clue (or maybe they do – with complete, reckless disregard) that they are promoting neurosis amongst the masses.

3.
The other page of interest on Jimbo’s website above is the forum page. Only a handful of comments have been left over the last 4 years. One comment cites the Chapman Trick in order to sell e-cigarettes:
http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/second-hand-smoke

Another is far more interesting. It seems that all the inflammatory rhetoric about “smoke drift” in apartment complexes has played its terrorizing part on the most gullible:
http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/new-york-times-on-ets-in-multifamily-housing

There are now people wanting to know how they can find out if smoke is getting into their apartment:
“I've had many people calling to find out how they can demonstrate that ETS is entering their apartments. In one case a retailer next to a tobacco shop was inundated with cigar smoke and needed to figure out how to prove there was a problem.”

4.
So how do they find out, particularly if they can’t even smell it or there’s no immediate evidence of it (because it’s not there), let alone any evidence of hazard? Well, here’s the good news for James. They would have to call an “expert” like Jimmy. Little Jimbo would turn up with his nifty gadget and with a few clicks in his “risk modeling” program he can terrify them with the imminent “danger” they are in. It’s all so pitiful and pathetic, but terrorizing/terrifying people, especially masqueraded as “science”, can be good for a shyster’s business. And Schuman is obviously one of Jimbo’s “convinced” clients.

This is really fun, and oh-so typical.

Einstein College recently studied folks who lived past age 95. The reluctantly reported result: “People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits.”

Einstein College press release:

http://www.einstein.yu.edu/home/news_pr … 78&pt=news

Did you notice in link above that they just state that the very old smoked about as much as did people who died younger, with no detail given, although detail is given regarding eating, boozing, exercise, and so on? Well, when it came to publishing the abstract with the National Institutes of Health, they ignore smoking results entirely! They do say that smoking was studied, but make no mention whatsoever that smoking was not shown to impair longevity: again, as with the press release, precise detail is given regarding other studied factors, but when it came to smoking — the holy taboo of all holy taboos — they simply couldn’t bear even to mention their own finding!

Here it is: the official NIH abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21812767

Study confirms the risk of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke at sidewalk cafes and other outdoor settings
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2007/pr-smoke-050907.html

The first line of the stanford study is the biggest lie ever told!

Tens of thousands of Americans die each year from secondhand tobacco smoke.

Then we see who paid for this shyster study of INSANITY!

The study also was co-authored by Paul Switzer, professor of statistics and of geological and environmental sciences at Stanford. The research was supported by grants from the State of California and the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute in Miami, Fla.

Today I read a piece about global warming and the progressives are having to defend everything across their JUNK SCIENCE war on the world in their attempt to control the masses. In typical fashion they jumped to tobacco trying to use the hopeful brainwashing of 50 years that tobacco causes disease to bolster their global warming /climate change junk! Now we not only have the GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS but the SHS DENIERS!

Whats most amazing is that JIMMY BOY and his ILK have caused people to go and check out this so called smoking causing disease claims too! Boy after you look at some of the studies its nothing but more JUNK SCIENCE!

After 50 plus years this is the actual facts:

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one!

I can remember in the army which I enlisted in first prior to the navy. We had to go thru gas mask training and theyd take 6 at a time into a sealed building and lite off a tear gas canister,then we had to stay there take the mask off for 2 minutes then run for the door!

Today I assume they use a lit cigarette and expect the same results if government propaganda has worked! No truer test could work to prove if brainwashing techniques are up to traditional NAZI STANDARDS!

In essence,the judge should have had a competency hearing for Mr.Shuman and had Mr.repace INCARCERATED for getting shuman and others to believe in HYPE! Since shs/ets isnt a protected religion he has no defence except for claiming he has a business liscence for FORTUNE TELLING!

Anyone with the intelligence of a Baboon, who has looked at the research in support of the fanatical view, already knows ETS is harmless. Of course that leaves out the politicians and the vast majority of the Public Health community. Who never stood a chance, being born different from the rest of us, as they were. Shame about that eyesight thing. It severely restricts their vision whenever they put on their pants.

Yes indeed a good friend of mine is a VANDERBILT TRAINED DOCTOR and he smokes..

What he says is that the medical schools in about 1984 began the anti-tobacco mantra on the medical students and todays manic anti-tobacco attitude in the health community can be traced pretty much to that political philosophy being rammed down doctors throats from that time forward!

Read through this document and if you agree with the content feel free to endorse and pass around

http://www.brusselsdeclaration.org

Also bookmark www.antiprohibition.org

I suggest that a copy of this discussion is backed up and sent to the RWJ Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and GSK - pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix marketing division. After they see that their old-timer puppet has been thoroughly debunked with 0 credibility remaining, they'll cease all funding. We will eventually bring them all down one by one. And this is a promise!

The Ohio prohibitionist exposed themselves
Its past time to kick the prohibitionists and their smoking ban to the sewer with the rest of the sewer rats and restore private property owners rights

Following the anti tobacco.tavern leagues admitting lying about no harm to Ohio business owners http://www.wlwt.com/health/29420203/detail.html#ixzz1a8EItIzk, league documentation has been discovered admitting prohibition and funding by the pharmaceutical who profits from nicotine gum and patches foundation

12thstate to enact statewide prohibition(ODH, 2008)
http://www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/3E020ACA0D424A699DDF213B7965AD4E/QSRP%20presentation%20-%20Bruckman.pdf Page 7

Variation in Enforcement of the Ohio Smoke Free Work Place Law by Local Health Departments –A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Quick Strike Project

Page 1

12thstate to enact statewide prohibition(ODH, 2008)

Look at the Tobacco Control researchers concluding ETS harms and consider how many of the papers, they published in league with their target conclusions. How many did they publish which made no sense and went against their targeted conclusions? Chance would say they have accomplished the impossible or at very least the highly improbable. A lack of studies showing no effect or opposite effects, among a long list of boarder-line studies, demonstrates proof of bias. With the risk of denouncement and fear of affecting ones financial future and reputation is a major publication bias effect. Many studies will never be published, if they don't go with the flow. What would be incredible at this point, is if we saw a higher number or even an equal number going the other way. The BMJ comments of Enstrom and Kabat research and a similar discussion after the publication of the WHO research proves the point.

One simple question, no one wants to deal with;
How could tobacco money possibly taint any research, if the research venue is credible.

The only legitimate component of the so called second hand smoke "research" which is conclusive, much like freedom of speech, if it is restricted and has no balance of perspectives, as it has been for more than two decades, it leads to a reality that is one sided and driven.

A much more formidable indictment, than the so called taint of tobacco money.

Tobacco control can not tolerate discussion, balance of perspectives or any critique of their own perspectives, simply because they know, their so called science will always fail to prove a significant risk by second hand tobacco smoke, wherever that legitimate discussion occurs.

And now we evolve to third hand smoke, with second hand smoke consensus, apparently safely in the lockup. Science by promotion can create many things, all that is missing is the scientific approach and at the end of the day you have only promotion and an elimination of science altogether.

A much coveted reality, if you are trying to impose a tobacco use elimination treaty. By force and medical coercions.

"Good news" if you are in the business of selling competing or "alternative" products. Prostitution of office if you are connected to the medical or charity organizations.

Bill you need to create a demand petition, to have the most popular advocacy stunt today investigated. Payola is alive and well and criminal activity has become the norm. The practice of major news agencies, taking news "releases" off the wires verbatim, which originate from advertising agencies, is a creation of the news to serve the needs of an advertiser.

The WHO has no checks and balances in place to protect itself against corruption. No small wonder the WHO is such a popular place of late for advertisers of products, to spend their efforts and investments. Perhaps by design and only in fact an appearance of impropriety, but evident all the same. If pressures were brought to bear against the UN agencies who created the fears of second hand smoke, Flu pandemics, fat pandemics and Global warming, as evidenced by claimed "consensus", with faulty science and "any excuse will do" promotions, in order to claim science or process as a legitimate and complete effort of investigation, prior to decision making, put in place of the more obvious promotional agendas, already declared prior to the invention of that faulty science.

This is payola with the largest medical and environmental organizations on the planet, prostituting, selling products and profiting by a failure to provide reliable information. As a deliberate undermining of "informed consent" principles in law, and by that reality a criminal act that demands prosecutions.

Its time to give these guys our closest attention

http://www.people.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/10/09/david-cameron-is-back-on-the-cigarettes-102039-23476035/

I wish Snowdon and many others would write, many more in depth articles explaining what is gained by freedom of speech and freedom of association augmented by the absolutes of "informed consent" VS what is lost by the "slippery slopes" [snowballs running downhill] of the Public Health Industry "'promotions"" of protected gospel or consensus science. A practice whereby all involved "stakeholder" partners agree, to never contradict an official political stance, for the good of the cause, and not as they claim in news releases; for the common good of the public. All on the tax payers dime?

A SAMMEC style study, revealing the costs, of medical anti-autonomy promotions, to the tax payers, revealing the true costs of both their intended and unintended consequences, would be astounding in the numbers it would reveal. At a time when economies are faltering this evidence might help to resolve a major causal factor. Knowing that all of those struggling economies are also struggling to overcome the significant increases in Public Health budgets and expenditures. With the major effects of irresponsible fear mongering promotions, which claim flu pandemics, fat pandemics and smoking pandemics are a major concern, while providing the lions share of those increased costs. It should be revealed that processes were adjusted deliberately and private property rules amended, in order to create those so called, new and urgent, pandemics and coached health risks, invented by a regulatory pen.

In the spirit of tobacco control, and as the announced template. CO2 is being declared a toxic substance internationally, by many of the Tobacco control treaty faithful. In order to bring it under the same advocacy regime of science and prostitution. It is obvious to all, that CO2 [plant food] is not actually toxic, however an exception is being made in order to increase the assets available, in the demand to control it. Soon those bubbles in your soda may inspire experts, such as James here, to help another neighbor to protect himself from the deadly toxin that is soda pop, and the second hand smoke it will emit.

Sound comical? that was the reaction only five years ago, when anyone sugested this lawsuit could ever be taken seriously and here we are.

There are many good people here in the USA, its time to pool resources and to fight with a common goal

http://jredheadgirl.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-i-oppose-smoking-bans-and-war-on.html

I heard a rumor once that the word Cigarette was being used in place of Idiosyncratic, to remove the taint of idiots from medical research.

Disease is either associated with smoking or it isn't, as the pitfalls described by smoking denormalization demand. Fair enough, if not associated with smoking they are associated with not smoking, as the only viable alternative in the new "caused by" directives of TC. Smoking caused 450,000 deaths last year and not smoking caused the other 1.8 million? Correct my numbers if they are not quite on target, but that is how it goes when you are in the advocacy business, a good guess is always good enough. You have to take the good with the bad, accept your failures, make corrections and move along, while never loosing sight of the brass ring at the end of the rainbow and all that good stuff that gets you going in the morning. IOW What ever floats your boat.

Idiosyncratic diseases used to cause those 450,000 deaths and now the comfort of the medical profession is finally secured having explained every thing out there, with nothing left to the unexplained. So if we know what caused those deaths why are the medical community so complacent, why are you not in favor of making cigarettes safer and preventing those preventable diseases?

Idiosyncratic is a name attach to the unknown disease causes, the unknowable, or in the words of the infamous Dr. House who once said "its Latin for we're idiots and we don't know what causes it".

There used to be a medical term they called "Syndrome", which was defined simplistically as "the unknown" such as you see with sudden infant death syndrome [SIDS] When calculating the costs of smoking the SAMMEC "research" papers didn't hesitate to include SIDS as a cost of smoking. Which solidifies the new directive that "if we don't know, blame smoking" because it is always a safe guess and no one is going to argue the point, even if it has absolutely no basis in fact or in science. The people who are actually associated with SIDS research, were silenced in the press, when trying to spread the word that sleeping on their backs reduced SIDS incidence by more than 60%. Leading the public astray on the issue was a dangerous and irresponsible enterprise which has associated costs. The failures of informed consent, in order to serve a higher master are obvious in this instance. How many babies died since, to serve the sales of alternative drug products, the number will likely never be calculated or disclosed in the News. Because it wouldn't fit with the gospel of Public Health Inc. to admit they could ever be responsible for, much less take responsibility for, anything.

Advertising is effective and second hand tobacco smoke stands as the ultimate proof. People will buy anything if the environment is provided, in which, that choice is making them happier, even than obtaining the product, that they will take home and evaluate later.

Jimbo Believes what he prefers to believe and hopes to spread the gospel of his unquestionable expertise, in spite of reality or the facts at hand.
Keep the faith brother...

Jimbo also prefers to work in smoke free environments as the mainstay of his earnings and not once has he exhibited the proof of his expertise, by wearing a has-mat suit while collecting his data.

Proof enough of what he really believes and the true level of expertise we are observing here.

Epidemiology draws a line between risk and no risk or as Jumbo would put it "cause and cures". If it is not caused by tobacco smoke it is then cured by tobacco smoke and that's the part of the calculation he has an extreme problem dealing with. If 50,000 deaths are caused by exposure to tobacco smoke, over 2 million deaths are not, therefore by his mindset and strictly by the same rules of statistical association, over two million are caused by non exposure?

No need to resolve the biological plausibility issue or even come to terms with common sense. This is an ethical medical promotion, beyond bias and politics and we have to stick to the rules.

Kevin wrote, "Jimbo also prefers to work in smoke free environments as the mainstay of his earnings and not once has he exhibited the proof of his expertise, by wearing a has-mat suit while collecting his data."

Oh, it's worse than that Kevin. Just visit the site for one of his latest abominations:

http://www.co.marquette.mi.us/departments/health_department/docs/Marquette_Air_Report_Repace_2011.pdf

where you'll find him officially asserting within a government study (that he was paid HOW much for? Mr. Repace, care to share what "honorarium" you selfless efforts there may have netted you?) that:

"No risk is expected to volunteers in collecting the data or to anyone in the restaurants
during data collection via the air monitor."

These were "volunteers" given $30 to $60 to go sit in a smoky bar/restaurant for an hour or so with the little "poison sniffer packs" that Repace is so fond of. Note: the conditions there were likely *MANY* multiple times over the excess amounts Repace recorded in Schuman's apartment -- but when it came to grubbing "volunteers" (somehow the word "volunteer" linked with $60 for an hour's effort seems a bit... wrong?) he evidently had NO qualms about it being a "no-risk" situation.

Mr. Repace, where have you gone? I'm afraid I now have to ask you, for the unlucky THIRTEENTH time, WHERE IS YOUR STUDY showing endothelial harm at the levels you measured in Mr. Schuman's apt? Back up your claim in your first posting here.

- MJM

1.
Jimmy is a man for the time. The only reason Jimbo has been able to pursue a “research” career is because antismoking is government-supported. Governments from around the world jumped on the antismoking, bigotry bandwagon since the early-1980s. This has provided obscene levels of funding for Jim’s neurotic-state “research”. In saner times Jimbo would have had far more limited employment opportunities like, say, a golf-ball collector on a practice driving range.

Like a number of other American states, Boston is attempting to push for smoking bans in apartment complexes. Bear in mind that evidence of smoke drift and, more importantly, hazard are not necessary. Smoke-drift and “hazard” are fraudulently promoted in antismoking propaganda. For example, the Boston mayor “is scheduled to launch Boston’s first smoke-free housing registry on Tuesday. The initiative seeks to resolve a problem posed by secondhand smoke in multiunit housing, where toxic fumes can seep from one apartment to another and bother other residents.”
http://articles.boston.com/2011-10-11/news/30267506_1_smoke-free-buildings-secondhand-smoke-outdoor-areas

2.
In this one statement is it claimed that ETS is a “problem”, “seepage” does/always occur(s), and that the seepage is “toxic”. The mayor isn’t mandating the nonsense but he is promoting it. There are some government departments that have instituted smoking bans in taxpayer-owned apartment complexes with no basis whatsoever.

It is then claimed in the article that “Under program, residents of Boston’s smoke-free buildings are protected by a written no-smoking policy that prohibits smoking anywhere inside the building as well as outdoor areas where smoke may contaminate indoor air.”

With this statement it’s claimed that, without smoking bans, people (nonsmokers) are “vulnerable”. Smoking bans will, therefore, provide “protection”. It indicates that bans should also be instituted for outdoor areas to avoid smoke drifting indoors. Again, the key, baseless inflammatory terms are “problem”, “seepage”, “toxic”, “bother”, “contaminate”, “bans”, “protection”.

It should be obvious that these are all the claims that are being made in the Schuman case. That’s why this case is so important. It is one of the rare occasions that the claims of the fanatics and their “expert” witnesses can properly be scrutinized. Usually governments/organizations just steam-roll legislation through without basis or scrutiny, i.e., a bandwagon effect.

3.
It should also be clear from the Boston.com article that this push for smoking bans has nothing to do with facts but is a social-engineering (eugenics) crusade, i.e., coercion to conformity. For example, the article begins with this statement:
“Efforts to restrict smoking in Boston are moving from bars and office-buildings to private homes.”
And ends with the statement:
“Officials are also expected to discuss other citywide efforts to reduce smoking.”

The bigoted goal is to restrict smoking, to make it as difficult as possible - through a multiplicity of fraudulent means such as denormalization, lies, slander, persecution – for people to exercise their choice to smoke.

Another social-engineering “initiative”, this time in Maryland, is:
Baltimore aims to stop smoking around pregnant women and babies
Campaign is next phase of Baltimore for Healthy Babies
http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-health-babies-20111005,0,2977754.story

These sorts of statements could be taken straight from eugenics-dominated America or Germany of the first half of the last century. But they’re not. They are being made right now. Again, facts figure very poorly, but there is much inflammatory propaganda.

Testing the TC modeled fat tax waters; The "debate" that never was...

"The new tax will be applied to products such as butter, milk, pizzas, oils, meats and pre-cooked foods"

http://www.besthealthmag.ca/blog/post/debate-should-canada-put-a-tax-on-fatty-foods?nocache=1#comment-11847


My comment awaiting moderation [fat chance; pun intended]

"Every dollar the government takes in taxes, levies, fines and fees, imposes an equal amount of poverty on the populace. The recent invention of UN promoted "impact assessments" as the ultimate lobby guide for promoting these financial impositions, has only two possible actions at the end of the assessment; "remedial action" and "preventative action" by an industrial process design, with "walking away" a non option. We pay the government through our taxes to asses the best strategy for "moving forward" with an act that has already been decided. In the formulation of for profit stakeholder alliances, to persevere until that action is encased in law. By hook or by crook. What ever happened to the ideal that the government represents the populace? Globalist thinking will have us all working for them in exchange for the common pot of gruel or be outcasts designated to the gutter or worse.

cont...

The cold hard reality of government bureaucracy is such that if you can no longer afford to eat and pay taxes too, they will seize your assets and sell them and leave you nothing, as your obligation in playing by the rules and paying your taxes. Of late the Government in hopes of avoiding being involved, or being seen as getting their own hands dirty, have assigned the task to a private corporation, who will act as the fist of a government who, through financial coercions, hopes to homogenize us all, in the delinquent spirit of eugenics, while claiming out of the other side of their face, to care about our health? Or incredibly to be doing the people's work?

Astounding we are not already rioting in the streets as we see in the rest of this soon to be globalised world. This Public Health statistical trash talk and irresponsible promotions of fear, are always about the money and if you follow the money, that lonely fact, invariably becomes crystal clear."

The process, training and common resources are found at the World Health Organization's website. Under the search for "impact assessments" or on the web by a search for "WHO impact assesment"

http://www.who.int/topics/health_impact_assessment/en/

This so called "assessment" approach, in addition to controlling the process participants, also injects a sole perspective on all topics, as a universal system of consensus truths, of which no alternative views will be either allowed, or evaluated, during the gradual implementation of the action in process. The Anti-smoker lobby demonstrates how this works in real practice, by blaming any fact or evaluation that deviates from their bevy of so called "indisputable facts" as a creation of the "evil Tobacco industry", never allowing, that anyone in any credible way, could ever express a valid opinion that is not aligned with their own.

They see what they want to see and never discuss any direct and significant challenges to their all knowing truths. "The Children must be protected" carries a lot more weight, when they treat entire populations as dependent children, crying for the common teat.

Common Purpose Project USA- Common Purpose Project Washington DC uniting top left-leaning Obama officials (03/09/2009)
Politicians and Civil Servants
Finally evidence emerges of Common purpose at work in USA: the Common Purpose Project Washington DC uniting top left-leaning Obama officials. The Common Purpose Project meets "every Tuesday afternoon at the Capitol Hilton" in Washington, DC, and "brings together the top officials from a range of left-leaning organizations, from labor groups like Change to Win to activists like MoveOn.org, all in support of the White House's agenda. The group has an overlapping membership with a daily 8:45 a.m. call run by the Center for American Progress' and Media Matters' political arms; with the new field-oriented coalition Unity '09; and with the groups that allied to back the budget as the Campaign to Rebuild and Renew America Now. Unlike those other groups, however, the Common Purpose meeting has involved a White House official, communications director Ellen Moran, two sources familiar with the meeting said. It's aimed, said one, at 'providing a way for the White House to manage its relationships with some of these independent groups.' The group's founder, political consultant and former Gephardt aide Erik Smith, described it in general terms after others had confirmed its existence. .

Ed: Read the full text to see Common Purpose now extending its reach to the heart of the US government. The objective is "progressive policy and progressive messages". This is Common Purpose speak for CHANGE. No wonder we are seeing Obama introducing more and more police state rules.

Quotes from Obama and Brown reported Sunday telegraph 2 March 2008. Barack Obama Iowa Dec 2007....... "You've shared with me your stories....A politics of COMMON PURPOSE...So that our young people can achieve their dreams.........I believe in the power of the American people".

Gordon Brown Birmingham March 2008......"The stories people have shared with me.......Our COMMON PURPOSE.........What Britain can achieve in the future..........I believe that everybody has a talent."

http://www.cpexposed.com/document_library/?city=USA

Well, it seems that Mr. Repace has simply admitted that he cannot back up what he says and stand behind it. Dunno if the judge ever stops in to read these comments, but if so then I hope proper note is taken of that. While I have focused on the claim about endothelial dysfunction in order to make a clear point, the same sort of slipperyness is displayed throughout the arguments of those pushing for smoking bans and trying to create a trouble and friction between smokers and nonsmokers that was almost nonexistent before the grant money started rolling in to support the professional troublemakers.

Very sad.

- MJM

JohnE; I fail to see how what you are describing is left leaning. Progressives represent left of left, all the way over to industrial socialism. Consistently by envisioning the geometry of a Homer Simpson Doughnut, the Right of right as far out there as you can go [to the extreme]and rolled back to a common point with the left of left extremists and their illogical underbelly campaigns [smoke free???], all coming together in the center. [observing an empty doughnut hole]The spinning scythe bringing all politics to the center to proceed in the third direction [Reich]. Is it surprising that both flavors of centrist parties [progressives] can claim any popular position, by the polls, as their own? It shouldn't be, nor should the common thought that "it doesn't matter who you vote for, it's always the same". While all parties will constantly promise change, which never arrives in a form we either expected or wanted.

Here we have the celebration of psychosis and normalization of the extremes, seen in lobbying for anti-free market economies. Logic promoted for instance, by banning anti-freeze [or forcing people to wear seat belts], "to protect the children"[children of all ages] in place of an encouragement of taking responsibly as adults and "parents of our own children", teaching them, not to drink it.

The occupy mob was created by labor unions who placed employment ads for up to 650.00 per week for however long the protests last, to organize and cheer-lead, with a larger number of useful idiots drawn in by the media party and largely by the internet "ad-busters" website, who injected a little ad-trickery of their own. Not surprisingly Stateside; Obama signed on, and in Canada current Liberal leadership hopeful and former NDP[communist] crew-chief, MP Bob Rae, ingratiated the rallies In Toronto. This is the Bolshevist revolution on wall street for the unions, and a chance to promote larger more intrusive government for many others. Eat the rich [but only the ones we choose] and "take their money" is the common theme [the only common theme] being promoted, among the useful idiots in the crowd. In Canada the more extreme Communists were driven out of the crowd and they started a separate protest, renamed occupy Bay Street. With Union bosses in tow. The media didn't follow, preferring to maintain the focus on the no message and no mandate dwindling crowd while still describing the 60-70 people as a huge force for change. That focus is driven by promotion, that only large money investors could possibly maintain. This protest will survive as long as possible, more by the sheer will of a never say die left of left media party, than as a result of the people still involved and their determined effort to maintain a Union paycheck with winter on the way.

"Well, it seems that Mr. Repace has simply admitted that he cannot back up what he says and stand behind it. "

Sadly Michael the largest part of his credibility is essentially smoke, his ability to expand on reality, beyond its normal proportions, to a much larger fantasy, that suits the comfort and convenience of some, at a convenient time when a product that relies on that timing and fantasy, is being marketed.

We are consumers, in a market controlled by fanatics and a public health community who are eager to sell their own worth, by promoting fear, demons and pandemics. I can see through this feast of fraud and opportunism and I know I am far from alone.

"Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. Unlike Niemöller, they gave in to the Nazis' threats. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. His crime was "not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement." Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control."

"First they came for the Jewish and I was not a Jew..."

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
—C.S. Lewis

Sue is Smokerphobic as is Repace. The real value of tax-payers' money would fund research that determines how people with this kind of personality disorder could be rehabilitated to end the social divisions their paranoia is causing. Smokerphobia is similar to any other kind of phobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. I believe Govts, persuaded by selective self interest orgs masquerading as "charities", have encouraged the spread of this mental health issue by the sheer scaremongering, over exaggerated claims based on manipulated "evidence" gained through maths rather than real, trustworthy, independent, and biological science.

Tick Tock the judgement draws near!

I wonder how Jimbo Repace would argue against pure science in the form of Close Coupled Field Technology (CCFT) as used by Air Manager

www.airmanager.com

Regardless of their nature, all micro-organisms including viruses, bacteria and fungal spores contain cells. AirManager destroys 99.999% of micro-organisms by rupturing their cell walls effectively rendering them inert and completely harmless.

Perhaps jimmy might crawl inside and test the high voltage chamber it appears to be as effective as jimmys tornadic winds! Come on jimmy,maybe these boyz will let you be a field engineer or a salesman!

I know there not a cell but there simple genes covered by protein shell and they haven't got enzymes to make themselves alive. (There are using only another cells enzymes to live)

Airfree and its HETD Ceramic Core internal temperature.
Here, we have listed only few examples of viruses’ inactivation by heating and in all
those cases, the temperatures were below the Airfree’s HETD ceramic core internal
temperature of 200 degrees Celsius. Since 1977, studies have showed that the higher the
temperature, the faster the proteins get denatured7. Therefore, we may infer that the
Airfree purifier may be efficient in the inactivation of the virus proteins in most cases,
resulting in the lost of the infection ability.

http://www.airfree.com/learn/virus1.htm

MJM wrote;

"Mr. Repace, where have you gone? I'm afraid I now have to ask you, for the unlucky THIRTEENTH time, WHERE IS YOUR STUDY showing endothelial harm at the levels you measured in Mr. Schuman's apt? Back up your claim in your first posting here."

He should also be asked why he mislead the court? If the effects of third hand smoke are as obvious as he claims, in his post above. How could he determine that his client is being harmed or his health risk is being increased by new tobacco smoke, ["no safe level" also indicates "no unsafe level" here] when the apartment could have been irreversibly contaminated, long before he or his neighbors moved in. Even if you evict the neighbors who smoke, the danger will not be mitigated to anywhere close to any acceptable levels demanded. With no other choice and for the protection of all involved, If I were the Judge in this matter, I would evict the non smoker. For his own good.

So...a year further down the line...what was the outcome of this case? My hope is that the judge will have browsed over the comments on here, and that Mr Repace is now incarcerated for a very long time.

Schuman had his condo rates go up (along with everyone else in the condos there) to pay for the expenses incurred by the Association in fighting his lawsuit. I believe he has appealed the case supposedly at his own expense, probably at the urging of the SmokeFree DC folks and Mr. Repace.

Meanwhile, Mr. Repace's comment about me on SmokeFree DC (a comment which I considered to be libelous since referring to me as one of a group of "industry moles" indicated a hidden and paid relationship with the tobacco industry) has been removed after sitting up there for quite some time in public view. See:

http://www.icyte.com/saved/www.smokefreedc.org/538500

SmokeFree DC refused to publish my response letter at all and has since replaced both letters with a short, unsigned, antismoking post that was supposedly posted to them between the two. You can see the replacement letter, along with my (still invisible to the public and held in moderation letter as they appeared on DC site on Dec. 12th) at:

http://www.icyte.com/saved/www.smokefreedc.org/546478?key=59a242a966159f220e4da5b0dbd2fe5ba1e6974a

Repace extended his charge in a letter to the Patch community urging that Patch shut down my ability to state arguments against him, calling me a "semi-pro tobacco industry spammer" and an "industry mole":

http://www.icyte.com/saved/greenbelt.patch.com/544357

His charge sat there for two months until I answered it. The charge & my defense were then evidently removed.

- MJM