tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post3949544608585735589..comments2023-10-31T05:50:15.431-07:00Comments on Simple Simon Says.....!: Does Brighton still Rock?handymanphilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01366547228505237107noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-39196188277085100852015-08-01T07:53:46.376-07:002015-08-01T07:53:46.376-07:00Many interesting points herein. Well worth a read....Many interesting points herein. Well worth a read. I wasn't aware that WHO has now stated that SHS poses no risk.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08400004961864660458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-79218281680538922662015-07-31T02:51:21.453-07:002015-07-31T02:51:21.453-07:00The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not ev...The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related. <br /><br />HATE IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-37093014391413429762015-07-31T02:50:52.587-07:002015-07-31T02:50:52.587-07:00Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign
One particula...Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign <br /><br />One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League. <br /><br />That's fine company are so called public health depts. keep with ehh!<br /><br /><br />History can shed so much lite on todays own movement it just amazes the mind...........<br /><br />Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.” Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-26713538783410185102015-07-31T02:50:18.573-07:002015-07-31T02:50:18.573-07:00OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and th...OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:<br /><br /><br />Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition <br /><br /><br /><br /> This sorta says it all <br /><br /> These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one. <br /><br /> So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''<br /><br />OSHA SAFE LEVELS <br /><br /> All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR. <br /><br /> For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes. <br /><br /> "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes. <br /><br /> "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. <br /><br /> Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up. <br /><br /> "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes. <br /><br /> For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time. <br /><br /> The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes. <br /><br /> So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets : <br /><br /> Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, 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." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.<br /><br />Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-8424267575592322992015-07-23T03:07:50.694-07:002015-07-23T03:07:50.694-07:00Link: http://consult.brighton-hove.gov.uk/portal/b...Link: http://consult.brighton-hove.gov.uk/portal/bhcc/ehl/smoke_free/smoke_free_areashandymanphilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01366547228505237107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-19188479666307458132015-07-22T09:50:58.734-07:002015-07-22T09:50:58.734-07:00We have now been invited to submit to the committe...We have now been invited to submit to the committee when they finally decide to convene :)handymanphilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01366547228505237107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-14677421346652966312015-07-22T05:14:10.458-07:002015-07-22T05:14:10.458-07:00If the Brighton council were so concerned over the...If the Brighton council were so concerned over the issue of public health then surely they would ban Traffic from the Town and from around schools as a measure to protect the little children.<br /><br />As all the health quangos have been made very well aware that toxic traffic fumes and other pollutants are the Real cause of problems as stated by the WHO with second hand tobacco smoke being of little concern, is it time for common sense to be shown ? I doubt it.<br /><br />Tug.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-66284124151916659562015-07-21T12:43:53.241-07:002015-07-21T12:43:53.241-07:00Great article. Presumably if such a ban was introd...Great article. Presumably if such a ban was introduced on Brighton's beaches it would be voluntary. Whether or not it is complied with, is neither here nor there. It is another conquest for anti smoking. Voluntary outdoor smoking bans will likely soon be commonplace in many of our cities; paving the way for outdoor bans to be made law which then would not be such a big change. Brighton's council should resist such petty spitefulness, their beach should be for everyone's enjoyment, not used as an excuse to target smokers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-69224448000911431732015-07-21T11:49:20.943-07:002015-07-21T11:49:20.943-07:00Just a point of note that the Royal college of phy...Just a point of note that the Royal college of physicians who were held up by the Government as the font of all statistics on deaths from second had smoke admitted that they have no knowledge of anyone dying from SHS. Their so called statistics are concocted from a hypothetical formula..<br /><br />The anti smoking crusade is just another exercise in spiteful social engineering here in a country that used to pride itself on freedoms.. B7Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-89316019486533170572015-07-21T10:25:21.365-07:002015-07-21T10:25:21.365-07:00..... and we have responded immediately!
Hi Daniel........ and we have responded immediately!<br />Hi Daniel - and thank you for your swift response.<br /><br /> In guaging people's opinions how are you going to ensure that representation from each side is fair or even equal? When we know that 75%-76% of the population no longer smoke there cannot possibly be a fair and equal ballot! I would point out here that a consultation was held pre-2006 with regard to people's opinions on the plausibility of a smoking ban..... but, strangely enough, it was only the anti smoking action groups that were canvassed and/or informed of such 'ballot'.<br /> There is no debate needed, nor lining up a 'Public health' v 'Personal freedoms' debate as there simp0ly IS NO PUBLIC HEALTH issue here Daniel! As the WHO have already classified SHS as harmless there can be no argument whatsoever.<br /> The press never report such high profile matters correctly, and I know this from first hand experience having conducted many an 'on the street interview' with BBC TC & ITV (various regions) only to find most of it has found its way onto the cutting room floor or not even onto the TV screen because I don't always say what they want to hear! You also need to remember that the media guard their income from Gov't very closely and virtually print what they are told to print!<br /> The Health and Wellbeing Board will approve the consultation as it is an anti-smoking jackpot! I mean to say Daniel, getting smoking (supposedly) banned in an outdoor location, which of course is a perfectly legal place to smoke according to the law passed in 2006!<br /> I look forward to the next stage with great interest and it is rather sad that I can no longer travel such a distance as Brighton as I would have dearly loved to have been part of the council chamber discussion!<br />Best wishes<br /><br />Phil J<br />handymanphilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01366547228505237107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9223100689951762699.post-91290633660712194592015-07-21T10:24:23.861-07:002015-07-21T10:24:23.861-07:00We have a response from Daniel Yates esq!
Hi,
...We have a response from Daniel Yates esq!<br />Hi,<br /><br /> <br /><br />Many thanks for your email.<br /><br />This paper is simply a chance to gauge people’s opinions which are (as always on these matters) a mixture of public health versus personal freedom arguments. I strongly feel that such a significant move could only be considered even after a public consultation as people’s opinions and willingness to support such a move is entirely unknown.<br /><br />The press of course have not reported the proposed consultation entirely correctly. I won’t pass comment on their reporting.<br /><br />I hope that the Health and Wellbeing Board will approve the consultation and that the public get to have their say. I’ve had such a mixed bag of responses (smokers in favour and non-smokers against for example) that I cannot predict in any way what the final outcome would be. But I do hope that the consultation will be broad, fair and unbiased.<br /><br />It will of course also allow councillors and CCG representatives to be better informed before considering the matter further.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Best wishes<br /><br /> <br /><br />Daniel Yates<br /><br />Labour Councillor for Mouslecoomb and Bevendean<br /><br />Chair, Brighton & Hove Health and Wellbeing Board<br /><br />daniel.yates@brighton-hove.gov.uk<br /><br />@danieljyateshandymanphilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01366547228505237107noreply@blogger.com