Groundhog Day, Indeed

One of those anti-smoking public health ashrams  housed their hero,  Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health at Sydney University, with his usual collection of washed up nonsense, disputable by my cat. But she's sleeping on the chair, so I'll have to bother. 

Let's get this out of the way first - why would someone from Croatia (EU) worry about Australian smokers and vapers?

Three reasons: 1) because I can feel their pain, 2) because I'm disgusted by what Aussie smokers and vapers have to put up with  and 3 ) because everything around vaping is a global issue and sooner or later, it's bound to affect the policies in my neck of woods.

Of course, the editor fell flat on her concerned nose in the very first sentence.  

A generation after public health advocates started the fight for a ban on smoking in public places another battle over exposure to cigarette use has commenced.

Vaping is not cigarette use. So, let me fix this for you:

A generation after we, public health advocates, started the fight for ban on smoking in public places, we started  another battle against e-cigarettes because more smokers quitting cigarettes actually means less funding for our public health coffers.

There, done.

However, Professor Simon Chapman disputes these claims and in the article below cites a range of evidence which demonstrates that both primary and secondary exposure to vaping can pose serious health risks.

Secondary exposure to vaping is practically harmless. The quantities of any substance released by vaping are so miniscule that it is laughable to even talk about second-hand vaping with a straight face. This was settled back in September 2012, in the experiment you can see below and download its description in pdf.

Of course, that one surely isn't in Simon's toolbox where only bogus studies by Glantz&co reside.

I rest my case. And the cat needs to be fed now she's awake.

Simon harassing smokers

Over the 30 years between the time we banned smoking in cinemas, buses and trains all public indoor spaces, ... finally in the last bastions, pubs and bars. 

Yeah, finally you left thousands of people without more than half of their business, not even bothering to ask for their approval and now you're bragging about it.

All that based on such stellar "research" like so called Helena Miracle, in which Stanton Glantz "proved" connection between passive smoking and heart attack by cherry picking the tiny town and tiny numbers that matched his hopes. Good heavens, my life archive has stronger representative sample that could prove what a hogwash "passive smoking" is. Any takers?

Read the excellent Fergus Mason's article on Stanton Glantz. Find Helena Miracle subheading, read about it. That whole miracle thing is hysterical, I promise you.

Secondhand smoke from very wealthy gamblers in high roller rooms where smoking is sometimes still allowed is not harmful to others. It’s only harmful when it comes from ordinary mortals’ cigarettes, apparently.

Yes, those same mortals that the government, aided by its public health squadron, stripped naked by imposing an astronomic tax on cigarettes.

Simon never misses an opportunity to brag about smoking rate being the lowest in his country. Of course that would be thanks to him and his public health cronies.

Here's the heartbreaking truth, though. In Australia a pack of cigarettes costs an arm and a leg. For instance, price of Marlboro in Hamburg is 68% lower. In New York it's 41%. Now, mind you, these are all nanny h(e)avens with abnormally high taxes imposed on smokers.

So, a heavy smoker of 2 packs and more in AUS is absolutely ruining not only his health, but also his own and probably his family's standard of living by having to pay 50-80$ A DAY to finance his addiction.

Of course, the vultures laud the taxation as a powerful deterrant. In reality they are ruining the same people they are unable to help quit. Despite all the funding they get for it, all the ineffective crap peddled by Big Pharma, all "stop-smoking consultants" on government and other tits, all state funded programs, and now  this needs to stop otherwise the paragraph will end up being a wall. 

To add insult to injury, they are also encouraging an already thriving black market that supplies cigarettes to all who are smart enough not to finance the state that treats them like enemy. 

Simon inventing more passive vaping harm

When researchers counted particles in the air of 4023 cubic meter room at a vaping convention on six occasions with between 59 and 86 people vaping, particle counts were 125-330 times higher than in the same room when it was empty, with concentrations higher than those recorded in bars where cigarette smoking was allowed.

Concentrations of what exactly?

Which particles, which are harmful and which are harmless ("are", not "may be")?

What is  the quantity of each measured?

How does each of those substances relate to limits prescribed by law?

I'm sure that cellar cleaning awaiting me is more dangerous than being on a vape fest. Now, I'm officially mortified. Thank you. (lol)

Let's just end this Simon's fearmongering with the final conclusion reached by scientists who performed the experiment referenced above.

 On the base of the obtained results and on ARPA data about urban pollution, we can conclude by saying that (it) could be more unhealty to breath air in big cities compared to staying in the same room with someone who is vaping.

Simon can't really miss talking about people he really likes to ban when they try to talk to him. 

E-cigarette advocates like to paint folksy scenes of one or two “considerate” vapers having a quiet and discreet vape in the corner of a pub. But occupational health and clean air regulations are not drafted to accommodate a little bit of asbestos or an occasional excess of carbon monoxide.

This guy is killing me. Which asbestos? There's no carbon monoxide. Five people were vaping for 5 hours in 60m2 room and there was no freaking carbon monoxide measured thereafter.

Two "considerate" vapers having a discreet vape in the corner of a pub is (or would be if you didn't ban the daylights out of them) more often occurring picture than 100 cloud chasers in an indoor meeting.

But common sense is not Simon's forte.

Public policy needs to deal with the diverse densities of patrons who might vape indoors. ...Would bar staff be required to limit the number of people vaping, or request or order them to be discreet or “considerate” with their exhalations ...  Will airlines allow a maximum of five passengers to vape but not 50? Good luck with all of that.

Coming from the mind that's been thinking about smoking for decades, but still doesn't uderstand smokers. He is also unable to grasp the life itself with its inner balance and flexibility.

Let's pretend for a moment that "passive vaping" isn't a non-issue.

Do you really expect 50 vapers on a usual flight. If smoking is at 15% (highly doubtful, but ok), then count half of that for future vaping. You'll have anywhere around 15 vapers on that plane, most of them discrete vapers, genius. You'd have anywhere between 5-10% people vaping in any venue on any usual occasion if vaping was allowed. Perhaps twice as much in bars and cafes in the evening.  

Despite their small mass, such particles may have significant toxicological impact because of their increased propensity for deep penetration into the pulmonary and cardiovascular systems.

Vaping has only been widespread in some nations for 6-8 years. Chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases typically have latency periods of 30 or 40 years between the beginning of exposure to noxious agents and the first clinical signs of disease.

Simon again, scaring people with mays and cans plus what might happen in 30 years. Sure my cellphone may kill me too if my laptop doesn't do the job first. Texas company selling air purifiers indicates that Fifi from the pic above possesses the same killing capabilities. All those particles she's spreading around. I am doomed, dear Aussies and others. 

This all comes from a guy who's been fighting smoking (actually - smokers) for most of his adult life. Now the much safer alternative has appeared and spread, what does he do? Conflates vaping and smoking. 

Because Simon has a product to sell, too, and vaping seriously gets in his way. Unlike the Texas air purifier company, however, the product that Simon sells helps nobody. 

He is "protecting" non-smokers from wildly exaggerated effects of "second hand smoke".

He is "protecting" smokers from switching to much safer variant - vaping.

He is "protecting" people from "passive vaping". It would make more sense to protect them from busy streets.  

He is actually protecting the shameful  and abnormally high tax on cigarettes which ruins the standard of living of heavy smokers and their families.

He is really helping the cig black market to thrive. 

Vapers and vaping advocates are the ones having Groundhog day here. We've been having it for years, with a Simon or two a day.  

You know what the saddest thing is -  many people, not necessarily stupid, would take what Simon says at face value. Same goes for Glantz. (Hence their success despite their obviously flawed science.) Heck, I'd have probably done the same a decade ago. Because the guy is a University Professor, Emeritus at that. And people tend to think these are all honest intellectuals searching for truth and putting it above anything else.

Ah, the good old days of naiveté!

Back to E-cigarette Today

Back to BLOG                                                                                               Back to Home

Written by Ljubica, @Switchtoecig, ex teacher, translator, passionate reader, ex smoker and now vaper, e-cig reviewer and vaping advocate.

Web Analytics
Protected by Copyscape

New! Comments

Leave me a comment in the box below.