Friday, April 28, 2006

Smoking ban reflects one more lost freedom April 28/06

I am not, and have never been a smoker, yet I do not applaud the smoking ban. I see this as just one more erosion, one more lost freedom Americans used to have.
Whether one is talking about the freedom to express oneself, a woman's right to dictate what will happen to her own body, or a business owner's right to say whether or not smoking is permitted in the establishment he owns, the message being sent by government is the same: They are telling us that we are children. We cannot be trusted to make our own decisions, and we must be protected from ourselves.
And we are allowing this to happen. There is a "tyranny of the majority" which is increasingly occurring in all aspects of politics, in which the party or interest group in power attempts to force its viewpoints onto everyone. The cost is our ability, our right, and our freedom to make our own decisions. That's not what America is supposed to be.

Jordan Arvik

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Remember the argument against Power Walls. Thur. 27/06

Might tempt or induce teens to smoke.

Now they have signs stating if you look under 25 the owners are required to ask for your I.D.
Here is a new reason.

From The Chronicle Journal; Tobacco rules 'just nitpicking' Tue.23/06

Simon Hoad.Tobacco Free Thunder Bay

"The move to remove tobacco advertising and products from sight comes from studies that have found more than half of cigarette purchases are impulse buys once the buyer gets into the store.
A Canadian marketing survey in 1995 found that 60 per cent of all cigarette purchases were unplanned," he said
Adults in the midst of "that tender stage" of fighting cravings after quitting are susceptible when faced with a wall of tobacco products in a store, he said.

In Thunder Bay 20 per cent of adults and 40 per cent of youth who smoke are not daily smokers. A further 70 per cent of smokers want to quit," said Hoad


Sunday, April 23, 2006


AS A visitor to your "fastest and most progressive" city in Alberta, I went to a couple of bars and casinos while there. In both, I did not know whether I was in the smoking or non-smoking sections until I saw people smoking or saw ashtrays. The air in the smoking area was cleaner and fresher than the air outside. Calgary is living proof ventilation works. It is sad other cities don't follow your example. Ventilation does work. Calgary should be the capital of Alberta.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

(Tell that to Edmonton.)

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Complaint registered with the C.R.T.C April 20/06

Re: radio commercial heard on country105 fm public radio out of Peterborough, Ontario, commercial ad sponsored by Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada:

Dear Whomever:

I would like to register a complaint of an ad being airred currently on Canadian Public radio. I find it totally disgusting, as a stroke victim myself, that the Heart and Stroke Foundation has no funds available for job retraining or helping stroke victims merge back into the business world and yet they can afford to pay for this type of disgusting commercial which does nothing more than further prostitute the case of cancer victim Heather Crowe. I find it simply amazing that this woman's doctors can do what all other world medical practitioners can't. This doctor can absolutely and unequivocably determine that this ladies cancer was caused by second hand smoke. Perhaps he /she would like to share this amazing process and scientific data with the rest of the world! This commercial is an insult to my integrity as a smoker, Canadian, and as a taxpayer. No one held a gun to this woman's head to make her stay in her place of employment for forty years. For her own selfish reasons she made a democratic choice to stay. What right does she have to prostitute her situation to take away the democratic choices of other Canadians? Both my parents fought in world war two in order to retain freedoms and liberties for others.This commercial is blasphemous to all veterans who did likewise. Please put a stop to this vile, repulsive, wretched garbage; pull the commercial and stop insulting the integrity of fair, honest, decent people. This commercial is a blatant example of one person not owning up to their own misguided choices , but instead blaming others for their predicament. Commercials like this only further desecrate an already ailing sense of National pride.

Most Respectfully,
Brian M. Grummitt..

AS A visitor to Edmonton, I noticed a situation that will be etched in my mind forever. I watched two women in wheel-chairs just off the hospital grounds, one hooked up to an IV, smoking cigarettes, looking cold, excluded, and alone. If that situation was about race, colour or creed, I would imagine that the public outcry would be so loud that the city of Edmonton would probably never recover. There is absolutely no human, medical, or scientific reason why sick patients can't be treated better than that.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay
(Smoke and ire.)

Indeed…… so much for self proclaimed professionalism in the anti industry…….the more I read and study on these topics the more I want to start chain smoking, they seem to indicate that smoking tobacco has a protection factor against these exposures. I have been sending this data repeatedly but no reply or publications yet and nothing from our elected so called "reps" not even a form letter……. Fred with 2CL sent me this link: http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/smoking.html

I'd love to get my hands on the "unpublished study" described in this report J

Best Regards:

Rob Moffatt
Hamilton, Bantario

-----Original Message-----From: Thomas Laprade [mailto:snowbird@tbaytel.net] Sent: April 18, 2006 1:53 PMTo: Rob MoffattSubject: Re: Known Causes of Lung Cancer

The people are so programmed that they can't figure out if a person gets lung cancer and he doesn't smoke or inhale second-hand smoke.
It baffles them

----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Moffatt
To: 'Thomas Laprade'
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Known Causes of Lung Cancer

Hi Tom;

I've been compiling some data on the known causes of lung cancer and thought you might be interested in it. They all seem to have a common denominator……public health and safety isn't it L

Best Regards
Rob Moffatt
Hamilton, Bantario

Depleted Uranium Pollution:

“They tried to attribute it to second hand smoke, but second hand smoke and cigarettes are nothing compared to being exposed to Depleted Uranium ("DU") and particulates created by DU explosions. You can smoke for 30 years and not do the damage that DU can do to you in 30 days.”

“How long does it take to get lung cancer after being exposed to DU and nano-particulates? On average 2-5 years is the correct answer. We started bombing Afghanistan in October 2001 or four and a half years ago. We started bombing Iraq again in March 2003, or just shy of three years ago.”

“When the whole truth, nothing but the truth is known about this matter ­ America is in for a very rude awakening. You will not want to watch Shock and Awe on TV when you find out to what extent it has been delivered into your life.”

“The DU contamination is present, it is real and people need to start working in unison to address the problem. This DU issue is a nuclear contamination calamity and DC intends to do nothing about it.”

“This DU issue makes asbestos pale in comparison. “

“The nations of Italy, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Canada, and many others are seeing the health problems in their soldiers and civilian workers that entered into these nuclear waste zones.”

Ground Level Ozone:

“Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOx and VOC, also known as ozone precursors. Strong sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations in the air. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of "bad" ozone, but other areas are also subject to high ozone levels as winds carry NOx emissions hundreds of miles away from their original sources.” http://www.solcomhouse.com/ozone.htm

“Scientists from Brazil, Britain, France and Germany have proved that intense exposure to ozone causes genetic mutations similar to those found in non-smoking persons who develop lung cancer, or 10 percent of the cases of this oncological disease in Sao Paulo, according to the Brazilian city's Cancer Hospital. While tobacco is the major risk factor for lung cancer, "ozone should be considered as another possible cause in urban areas," Carlos Menck, coordinator of the study and professor of microbiology at the Biomedical Sciences Institute at Sao Paulo University, told Tierramérica.”

Confirming that relationship requires further research, acknowledges Menck. But the progress made in identifying genetic alterations caused by ozone looks like yet another concern to be added to others in the world's metropolises suffering air pollution, as do Sao Paulo (more than 10 million inhabitants) and Mexico City (20 million).”

Tremolite Asbestos:

“Health Canada doesn't think it's necessary to warn homeowners because they recommend consulting professionals before renovating. The problem is that most professionals have no idea there's asbestos in Zonolite.”

“This particular mine was unusual because the area also included a natural deposit of tremolite asbestos. As a result, much of the vermiculite from the Libby mine was contaminated with tremolite asbestos. According to experts, it's a very toxic form of asbestos, 10 times as carcinogenic as the more prevalent chrysotile asbestos.”

“In Ontario and Quebec, as in many other provinces, there's no health warning about old Zonolite insulation. A reference used both in Quebec and Manitoba is the Quebec's Worker's Compensation Board, (CSST) Toxicology Index. The entry for Zonolite now clearly mentions the risks of asbestos tremolite contamination. But this notice was added to the index only hours before our interview with a CSST official.”

“According to documents from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), between 15 and 35 million U.S. homes and businesses were insulated with Zonolite. Documents show about one tenth of the production from Libby was shipped to Canada. It was even on the list of eligible materials for the federal government's Canadian Home Insulation Program (CHIP), a program that offered grants to homeowners from 1977 to the mid-1980s.”


Radon Gas:

“Children are known to be more radiosensitive than adults. Analysis of Hiroshima victims showed a higher incidence of lung cancer among those who were exposed to the radiation blast as children. A single x-ray to the abdomen of a pregnant woman in the first six weeks of pregnancy leads to a 50 percent increase in cancer and leukemia risks to the child. The gamma rays emitted by radon progeny are far more energetic than x-rays but the emitted alpha and beta particles are even more harmful.”
“Radiation risk to embryos is higher than to children, which in turn is higher than to adults. Children are more susceptible to radon-induced cancer due to their rapidly dividing cells and higher breathing rates. It is compounded by their heavier exposure to radon by spending more time inside the house and/or in the basement. (Source: Dr. Gordon Edwards - Estimating Lung Cancers) “
“Recent research in Europe confirms that radon is much more harmful to children than to adults. Lung cancer incidence as a result of radon exposure is estimated to be about ten times higher for people exposed at the age of about 15 than at about 50.”
“However, the onset of lung cancer takes decades. EPA has not found convincing epidemiologic evidence of increased risks to children (except to the smallest ones) and its radon guidelines for homeowners are thus based solely on the lung cancer risks to adults.”
Radioactive lining of the lungs
“After radon gas is inhaled, it readily dissolves in the blood and circulates through the body, organs, and tissues, until it is again exhaled through the lungs or skin. Equilibrium is established between the ambient and the internal radon concentrations. Since the radioactive half time of Radon-222 is 3.8 days, most radon atoms harmlessly leave the body before they can disintegrate.”
“The problem is not radon, but rather the radioactive particles it produces. As radon atoms undergo radioactive decay, they disintegrate into radiation and radon progeny ("daughters") - solid heavy metal particles of lead, polonium, and bismuth. These minute, electrically charged and chemically active particles float in the air, and when breathed in, some (less than 1%) get trapped permanently in the airways. The accumulated radioactivity in the airways is proportional to the radon level - at the 4 pCi/L level, about 600,000 radioactive particles get trapped in the lungs every hour.”
“The deposition in the lungs depends on whether the particles are attached to airborne dust or smoke, or unattached. Unattached daughters lodge deeper in the lung, which explains the severity and the type of radon-induced deep-lung cancers in non-smokers.”


“Dioxin is a name given to a group of persistent, very toxic chemicals. The most toxic form of dioxin is 2,3,7,8-tetracholorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD. Dioxin is the contaminant in Agent Orange which impacted Vietnam Veteran's health and that of their children. Dioxin is not intentionally produced or used. It is a toxic industrial byproduct that results from incineration of garbage, bleaching of paper and the manufacture of plastics and other processes that involve chlorine, organic material and heat.”

The International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated the scientific evidence in humans and classified dioxin as a "known human carcinogen", their highest level of certainty. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also considers dioxin to be a human carcinogen.It is also linked to birth defects, immune system dysfunction, hormonal imbalances, male infertility, and other health problems.
Dioxin rapidly builds up in the food chain and is known to contaminate human breast milk, cow's milk/dairy products, and Great Lakes fish and is dangerous to those who consume them”

“The United State Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Draft Dioxin Reassessment report, concluded for the first time that dioxin is a "human carcinogen" and that virtually every American has a body load of dioxin that is at or near levels shown to cause health effects.”
“According to the EPA, the risk of getting cancer from normal exposure to dioxin is at least 1 in 1,000. That's 270,000 cases of dioxin-caused cancer, or 10 new cancer cases every day. This shocking rate obliterates EPA's customary "acceptable" cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000. Those who ingest large amounts of meat and dairy products, comparably high in dioxins, have a risk of developing cancer that could be as high as 1 in 100. This estimate places the risk of getting dioxin-caused cancer 10 times higher than EPA's previous projections. “
“Dioxin is a result of combustion activities such as hazardous waste incineration. It attaches to dust particles and can travel large distances from the stack. It lands on grass and animal feed, and bioaccumulates as it moves up through the food chain. When people eat or drink animal products, the dioxin stored in the animal's body is transferred to their bodies.”
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Risk Specific Dose (lifetime dose) for dioxin is 0.01 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day. (This equates to 1 in a million cancer risk. In other words, it is estimated that at this dose, one person out of every million will get cancer.)
The following calculations show how many adult doses of dioxin Kodak's incinerator emits each year:
70 kilogram adult (154 lbs.) x 0.01 picograms = 0.7 picograms (adult dose/day)
0.7 picograms x 365 days = 255.5 picograms (adult dose/year)
139,000,000,000 picograms emitted / 255.5 picograms = 544,000,000 Adult Doses/Yr.
Assuming that EPA's 1 in a million cancer risk is acceptable, the 0.01 picogram rate can be characterized as an acceptable dose rate. Based on this risk characterization, the Building 218 incinerator is emitting enough dioxin for 544,000,000 adult doses per year!

Two studies have evaluated cancer risk among subjects exposed to contaminated rice oil in Japan (Yusho) and Taiwan (Yucheng). The Japanese oil contained in the order of 1000 mg/kg PCBs and 5 mg/kg PCDFs. Estimates of intake are based on a study of 141 cases (Masuda, 1994). These patients consumed about 600 ml of oil over about one month, and ingested about 600 mg of PCBs and 3.5 mg of PCDFs total. Assuming a body weight of 60 kg, the daily dose was thus: 0.33 mg PCBs/kg/day and 0.002 mg PCDFs/kg/day. The Taiwanese oil contained about 100 mg/kg PCBs and 0.4 mg/kg PCDFs. Estimates are based a study of 99 cases. Patients consumed about 1 gram of PCBs and 3.8 mg of PCDFs over a period of about 10 months. Daily doses were approximately 0.06 mg PCBs/kg/day and 0.0002 mg PCDFs/kg/day. The contaminated rice oil contained a complex mixture of chlorinated ring compounds, including dioxin- and non-dioxin-like PCBs, PCQuaterphenyls, PCTerphenyls, as well as the PCDFs. There was an excess liver cancer risk in Japan (OR = 3.1) at 22 years of follow-up, and no excess risk in Taiwan (OR = 0.8) at 12 years.
In summary, the epidemiological evidence from the most highly 2,3,7,8-TCDD- exposed cohorts studied produces the strongest evidence of increased risks for all cancers combined, along with less strong evidence of increased risks for cancers of particular sites. The relative risk for all cancers combined in the most highly exposed and longer-latency sub-cohorts is 1.4. While this relative risk is not likely to be explained by confounding, this possibility cannot be excluded. It should be borne in mind that the general population is exposed to 2-3 orders of magnitude lower levels of TCDD, and 1-2 orders of magnitude lower levels of PCDDs/PCDFs than those experienced, as an equivalent lifetime dose in the industrial populations examined or the population at Seveso."

Hexavalent Chromium:

Hexavalent Chromium is a known human carcinogen. Unlike some other forms of chromium, it rarely occurs in nature. Chromium can cause lung cancer long after the exposure has ended. It can also cause:
non-cancer respiratory diseasesliver and kidney damageskin and blood disorders
Hexavalent Chromium is considered more toxic than other forms of chromium.
Hexavalent chromium causes lung cancer in humans. Evaluations by the California Department of Health Services, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry indicate that the risk of lung cancer to exposed workers is extremely high. The best estimate of the excess risk of lung cancer from exposure to hexavalent chromium compounds at California's current Permissible Exposure Limit, every working day for 40 years, is 8 cases of lung cancer in every 100 workers exposed.
This Hazard Alert has been issued to warn employers, workers, worker representatives, and others about the serious risk of lung cancer and to provide these groups with information on how to control exposures. A less technical version of this Alert is also being issued.
Chromium is a metal. It exists in several different forms: divalent, trivalent, and hexavalent. Only hexavalent chromium is recognized as a human carcinogen. Only hexavalent chromium is discussed in this Alert.
Hexavalent chromium has many uses. It is used as a pigment in paints, inks, and plastics; as an anti-corrosion agent in protective coatings; and in chrome plating. See the table on page 2 for the names of some common hexavalent chromium compounds and their uses. Workers in many different occupations are exposed to hexavalent chromium. Occupational exposures in California occur mainly among workers who: a) handle dry chromate-containing pigments; b) spray chromate-containing paints and coatings; c) operate chrome plating baths; and d) weld or cut chromium-containing metals such as stainless steel.
Hexavalent chromium enters the body in two ways: by being inhaled or by being swallowed. Chromium can be inhaled when chromium dust, mist, or fumes are in the air. Chromium dust can also get on cigarettes. If contaminated cigarettes are smoked, the smoker inhales additional chromium along with the tobacco smoke.
Particles of chromium can be swallowed if the dust gets on hands, clothing, or beard, or in food or beverages
Hexavalent chromium causes lung cancer in humans. Workers exposed to hexavalent chromium in workplace air had much higher rates of lung cancer than workers who were not exposed. Studies of workers in the chromate production and pigment industries consistently show increased rates of lung cancer. Studies of chrome platers also generally show increased rates. Studies of stainless steel welders are inconclusive, but stainless steel welders have not been studied adequately. Evaluations by the California Department of Health Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate that the risk for workers is extremely high. The best estimate of the excess risk of lung cancer from exposure to hexavalent chromium compounds at California's current Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), every working day for 40 years, is 8 cases of cancer in every 100 workers exposed. An individual worker's actual risk depends on how much hexavalent chromium is in the workplace air and how long the exposure goes on. The lower and briefer the exposure, the less the risk of lung cancer. That's why it is important to take steps to reduce worker exposure immediately.
Respiratory Tract: Hexavalent chromium can irritate the nose, throat, and lungs. Repeated or prolonged exposure can damage the mucous membranes of the nasal passages and cause ulcers to form. In some cases, the damage is so severe that the septum (the wall separating the nasal passages) develops a hole in it.
Skin: Hexavalent chromium is very irritating to the skin. Prolonged contact can cause ulcers to form. Some workers develop an allergic sensitization to chromium. In sensitized workers, contact with even very tiny amounts can cause a serious skin rash.
Eyes: Hexavalent chromium is an eye irritant. Direct eye contact with chromic acid or chromate dusts can cause permanent eye damage.
Hexavalent chromium materials are used in many jobs, but three jobs in particular involve frequent and/or heavy chromium exposure. These jobs are spraying anti-corrosion coatings, welding and cutting stainless steel, and chrome plating.
Spraying: In spraying anti-corrosion coatings, a liquid that contains zinc chromate or lead chromate is applied to metal surfaces through a high-pressure spray gun. The spray nozzle creates a mist that can be inhaled. Spraying coatings without adequate control measures can lead to exposure more than twenty times above the legal exposure limit.
Plating: In chrome plating, metal parts are immersed in a liquid solution of chromic acid through which an electric current flows. The electroplating process creates gases that bubble to the tank surface and carry liquid particles of chromic acid solution into the air. This mist can be inhaled. Hard chrome plating, which uses a stronger electric current and a higher tank temperature than bright chrome plating, creates the most chromic acid mist. Hard chrome plating without adequate control measures can lead to exposure several times above the legal exposure limit.
Welding: In welding or cutting, the intense heat of the arc or flame vaporizes the base metal and/or the electrode coating. This vaporized metal condenses into tiny particles called fumes. These fume particles can be inhaled. Chromium fume is created by welding or cutting on stainless steel or metals that are coated with a chromium material. Welding on stainless steel without adequate control measures can lead to exposure at least several times above the legal exposure limit.
Cal/OSHA's current Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for water-soluble and certain water-insoluble hexavalent chromium compounds is 0.05 milligrams of chromium per cubic meter of air (0.05 mg/m3). The PEL for zinc chromate is 0.01 mg/m3. The PEL for chromyl chloride is 0.15 mg/m3.
Legally, exposure may be above the PEL at times, but only if it is below the PEL at other times, so that the average exposure for any 8-hour workshift is no greater than the PEL. Measuring the amount of hexavalent chromium in the air is the only reliable way to determine the exposure level.
The current Permissible Exposure Limit does not adequately protect against lung cancer. We recommend that the amount of hexavalent chromium in the air a worker breathes be kept as low as possible.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

A Letter I sent to MacLean's Magazine

It's all your fault

This is the letter I sent to MacLeans Mag April 20/06

A Winnipeg doctor has announced that he will no longer treat patients who smoke. In that decision, and the logic that supports it, lies the remedy for all that ails the nation's troubled health care system. There are two central principles at work in the doctor's decision which, if followed with rigor and consistency, will, in an instant, reduce the demand for universal health care, unburden its staff and facilities, and save immense buckets of money. The first principe is patients culpability. Are you sick or injured because of something you did?
Wrap your car around a tree because you were on the cellphone? Don't, repeat don't, dial 911. If the illness or injury is your fault, the pain is your own, the suffering belongs just to you, and your doctor may shut the doors of medicare in your face. Smokers' illnesses are their own fault. And cutting off smokers from the health-care system will immediately eliminate 30 per cent of its clients. But, though smokers are legion, they are only a subject of the addicted class. Alcohol addiction is a gold seam of maladies and injuries, both physical and mental. Cutting off the alcoholics will trim the lines in the emergency room and an overburdened health-care system will finally start to hum and buzz like the hygienically oiled machine it's meant to be. If one addiction takes you off the health-care rolls, obviously, another will as well. The hard and soft narcotics, pain-killers and cough drops, prescription and non-prescription pharmaceuticals, the rock of hash and the kick of crack--all of these have an energetic and toxic following. There are whole armies of doped and hooked people out there, whose pursuit of their own addiction brings them to the waiting rooms of our clinics and the taxed attention of clean-living medical staff all over the country. Off with the addicts. The good doctor's wisdom extends beyond addiction. Culpability for one's own malady is the rule. AIDS is a demanding disease. We will have to discriminate among AIDS victims. Those who suffer its affliction through unsafe sex clearly fall into the category of "those who have brought it on themselves." Under this new regimen, "Go home and moan" will be the watchword. It is too easy to list the obese , the reckless, the sedentary, the fast-food junkies and the extreme sports freaks--but they fall into the grab bag of those who bring pain, injury, misery and unwellness unto themselves. To the fat cardiac or the maimed snowboarder, let the call go out: "The doctor is not in."And here is the second principle: physician rule. Sick people have had the run of the health-care system for too long. Medicine, like war, should be left to the professionals. Doctors, acting on their own, should decide which of the sick and dying are worth their time. A doctor-centered health-care system, one that leaves the doctor to make a preliminary moral decision on those who stumble or fall at his door-- before engaging his attention or calling on his skills--is so much clearer, so much cleaner than this dreadful relic of state-supported, universal, taxpayer-borne, free-for-all, patient-centered freakshow that we have now. Before a patient is even asked for his or her medicare card, the scrupulous physician will bend over the maimed and the halt, with just one critical inquiry. "Is this your own fault?"A "yes" answer, and the wailing hulk is wheeled out to agonize untended, and rage alone at the dying of the light. Cruel, some might say--buts what's a continent of cruelty against a doctor's right to choose?. There's only one refinement I can think of to improve on its near perfection. Our nation's hospitals, paramedics and psychiatrists should push this artful reform one more mile.The sick are the No. 1 burden on health care. The Eastern mystic and the Western psychiatrist have long suspected that the sick are complicit in their own sad condition. Doctors should-- and on the principles outlined here, they will be on solid ground--refuse to treat anyone but the completely healthy. Medicare for the healthy--don't you like the sound of that? It's so tidy. Well, maybe "treat" is not the right word. How's "mingle with"? In this brave new Hippocratic world, the hospitals and clinics will be near empty. Doctors and the very well will have to invent reasons to see each other. I suggest a weekly party. A smugfest. They'll have the space.The poor socialists, they thought health care was for the sick people, doctors served patients, and medicine for those in pain. Damn deluded socialist.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont
Ph. 807 3457258

Monday, April 17, 2006

My letter published in the edmonton Journal


Smoking ban startles visitor.... April 17/06

Dear Editor, April 13/06

As a visitor to your great city..Edmonton, the capital of Alberta, I noticed a situation that will be etched in my mind forever.

I watched two females in wheel chairs just off the hospital grounds, one hooked up to an IV, smoking cigarettes, looking cold, excluded, and alone. I can only imagine what kind of reactions they were enduring from the people walking by them into and out of the grounds they'd been exiled from.

If that situation was about race, colour or creed, I would imagine that the public outcry would be so loud that the City of Edmonton would probably never recover. There is absolulely no human, medical, or scientific reason why sick patients can't be treated better than that.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay

Friday, April 14, 2006

Want to see how anti-obesity advocates are engineering public opinion ? Want to see how they come about planning every last word they use to control our behavior and decisions? Most interesting 43 page read. Funded partly by none other than the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/BMSG_AccelerationReport.pdf
Policy on
Lessons from Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms, and Traffic SafetySome excerpts:
The political opportunity of children and youthMost agree that in the policy realm there is often a strategic advantageto framing issues around children. Children are sympathetic because they are innocent. Advertisers prey on them. And children who get addicted to unhealthy products eventually die from them.
Prominently with former Food and Drug Commissioner David Kessler, the tobacco control movement put children front and center to great overall benefit. However, there are some limitations to this strategy. The biggest danger is that policies that successfully protect children may preclude adults from the benefits of prevention. Also, because adults largely determine the dietary patterns of young children it simply will neither be efficient nor effective to ignore policies that influence the food environment of adults.
In tobacco, efforts to enact clean indoor air laws have been most successful when those laws are framed as protecting the health of all workers, rather than framed as primarily protecting any children who may be exposed to secondhand smoke. But other fields have focused on children and youth without much controversy. Advocates point out that in injury control it has always been held as obvious that public health could make its best advances by framing issues around children. The examples are many: public health advocates achieved motor vehicle-related child restraint laws before they could even dream of enacting adult seatbelt laws; they regulated the temperature at which hot water heaters discharge water based on childhood scald injuries; they are changing the designs of guns based on the need to make them childproof.
The hook of children now developing the type of diabetes that previously was seen only in adults is compelling, and, many believe, should be motivating for others.
Furthermore, children’s vulnerability alone is reason to target certain industry practices, like advertising aimed at young children, which can be deemed inappropriate because of the stage of children’s development and how they process information.
The risk is that no one knows whether a compromise in the form of concessions for children’s sake will make it more difficult to achieve policy changes that benefit the entire population. Advocates want to avoid limits on promising policies in the name of children. For example: A restaurant chain agrees to provide nutritional information for its meals — but only on the children’s menu. Or, an attempt to attack the practices of a food company or restaurant is thwarted when the offending company responds that only a small fraction of its products are used by children — the company points out that most of its customers are adults who can make decisions for themselves. A general goal of preventing obesity does not in any way limit anyone’s ability to use children as examples. That remains a useful tactic without being an exclusive focus of obesity related policies.
Political Opportunity:
How Can We Create Opportunities to
Advance the Policy?
In the real world, policy advocates realize that political successes rarely come when and where you want them. Successful policy advocates are as skilled at taking advantage of political opportunities that present themselves as they are in setting the political agenda to match their policy priorities.
So, for example, an airplane crash might quickly bring about new safety regulations that consumer advocates had been supporting for years.
Immediately after the shootings at Columbine High School in 1999, injury control advocates advanced gun laws that otherwise might still be languishing in state legislatures.
But opportunity can only be exploited if there is a movement that knows where to look for it, recognizes it when it happens, and has the capacity to act on it. Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat on a bus only became a defining moment for the civil rights movement because of the existing infrastructure of community advocates ready to capitalize on that moment.
Acceleration Meeting participants highlighted two areas that nutrition advocates might look toward for upcoming political opportunities: local level policies and misdeeds by political opponents.

A letter to the Globe and Mail

Dear Editor, April 14/06

Your article in the Globe and Mail-April 14/06
"Health groups do slow burn over tobacco case."

Dr. Ashley said, "There is no doubt that thousands of smokers have been duped by this fraud, and because they have been duped they've continued to smoke
cigarettes that they think are less hazardous to their health rather than quitting altogether."

As a smoker I don't ever recall asking Dr. Ashley to represent me as a 'duped' smoker.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay

Michelle Gervais..The smokers pay double if not triple taxes. Mar. 17/06

Smokers already pay their fair share of health care costs along with every else but we are the only group that has been "charged" for lifestyle risks through tobacco taxation.
Suggest that if non-smokers don't wish to pay the "extra" costs associated with smoking then why should smokers want to pay the "extra" costs associated with other high risk activities: like drinking, like drug use (both legal and non-legal), joint replacements for joggers, diabetes treatment for the obese, those injured indulging in risky sports, those who have more than 2 kids etc etc.
This means that smokers have actually paid for their health care twice. Now with this lawsuit, if the provinces are successful, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be considering that the provinces have passed laws that overturn hundreds of years of legal precedence, smokers will be asked to pay for the same health care a third time.
It is perhaps time that smokers (a quarter to a third of the adult population) consider that universal health care is not in their best interests.
In United States - the extra premiums charged to smokers by private insurers is about $50 - 100 per month. Smokers are paying approximately 200 / month in provincial taxes and another 100 in federal taxes on average In short - why should smokers continue to underwrite the health care costs of everyone else?

Tuesday, April 11, 2006


Whether Jim Watson admits it or not, alcohol is the next item on his list of bans. I was always under the impression that politicians are elected to serve us, not vice versa.
Thomas Laprade

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?