Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Nine hundredth hand smoke.

All railway carriages that were in use before the smoking ban.

All buses and other forms of public transport that were in use before the smoking ban.

All public buildings that existed before the smoking ban.

Every private building and every private vehicle that existed before the smoking ban.

All of it has to be destroyed. All of it. It is the only logical conclusion to this - (with thanks to the tipsters in the previous post's comments.)

Any park bench a smoker might have sat on. Anything a smoker might have touched or breathed on or passed by. You non-smokers are in for a terror-fest that Hollywood can never match.

Did you move into your house as soon as it was built? No? Then how can you be sure a smoker didn't live there, or visit there, before you moved in? Rip out the plasterboard, it might be contaminated. Replace it all. Gut the house. There might be a molecule of tobacco smoke in there.

Is your car second hand? Don't use it. Don't go near it. ASH will send some expensive specialists round to take it away for you. If you must drive it, only do so with all the windows open and don't breathe. Cover the seats with plastic sheeting. A molecule of tobacco smoke might be lurking there.

Expecting a delivery? Check the number plate on the van. Is it from a time before the ban? Oh dear. Lock your door and refuse delivery. A molecule of tobacco smoke might transfer from the van to your package, and get into your house.

Perhaps the van is new. You can open the door. But wait - what about the warehouse the van came from? How long was that there? Did they once allow smoking? And is the product made in China where they don't have a smoking ban? No, there is no escape. Disinfect yourself, lock the doors, hide in the cupboard. As long as you are certain that whoever made the cupboard was not a smoker, that is. He touched it, you know! You must wear latex gloves at all times. I have a pack here, very reasonably priced considering the enormity of the danger. What do you mean, too expensive? Isn't your child's life worth it?

I am going to have enormous fun with this. Later. For now, this has a much more serious implication.

First, the science. There is no such thing as 'tobacco specific nitrosamines'. What they are finding are 'plant material specific nitrosamines'. Tobacco is made of leaves, you know. If you have a log fire, your house will test positive even if no smoker has ever been anywhere near it. If you burn incense on a wooden stick, you have it too. If you smoke herbal cigarettes that contain no tobacco at all, you will get exactly the same result as that found for tobacco smokers. (You might even believe you're addicted to those tobacco-free cigarettes). There is no need to worry. There is nothing to suggest the chemicals are actually dangerous, nor that they are present in any significant amount.

The conclusion was written before the research started. It is more sham science run by useful idiots. Its purpose is not health at all. None of it is about health and never was.

Its purpose is to allow legislation of how you live within the walls of your own home. Antismokers will cheer it on 'for the cheeeldren' and once it's done, well...

Alcohol is bad for you. It costs the NHS money. There will be limits on how much you can have in your home at any one time. It must be stored in a locked cabinet, out of reach of children. Inspectors will enforce this.

Obesity is bad for you. it costs the NHS money. Your food stock must be monitored for non-approved items. Inspectors will enforce this.

That's just the beginning. What's that, antismokers? Never happen? They can't dictate how you live? Why not? They are doing it to smokers on spurious health grounds based on faked research which has failed to identify any real danger. They won't stop there.

Do you have kids? Do they like fizzy drinks? Their intake must be limited. Inspectors will enforce this.

This is where it will lead. The army of rabid antismoking zealots will delight in further attacks on smokers in their own homes and will then be surprised when the in-home legislation becomes widespread. Once the great taboo is broken, once legislation on lifestyle extends into private homes, there will be no stopping it.

It will start with the smokers.

The antismokers will help it happen. They will make it possible for every waking minute to be monitored and controlled.

In ten years, I'd be very interested to hear their explanations.



Update: Uncle Marvo has some interesting news on this one.

More updates: There's a lot more here, here and here. The side-effects of this new move are very wide-ranging indeed.

Oh, and if you want to know about nitrous acid, the stuff they aren't at all concerned about, the stuff they find acceptable to have floating around your house because it doesn't come from tobacco, there's information all over the internet. You might not like what you find. Antismokers certainly won't.

Nitrous acid is a very potent mutagen that acts directly on either replicating or non replicating DNA by oxidation or deamination of the bases that contain amino groups (adenine, guanine and cytosine). Conversion of the amino groups to\keto groups changes the hydrogen bonding potential of the bases.

When it's already reacted with particulates from smoke, it's much less harmful than when it's in its raw, reactive form. So smokers are far less likely to get cancer from it than nonsmokers because the smoke mops up this deadly mutagen from the air. Excuse me, I feel a bout of uncontrollable laughter building.

19 comments:

Custard said...

When I read this "story" on the BBC website, I laughed so much that I thought I was going to have a coronary. If they really want to safeguard the health of the nation, they should stop spouting such utter shite as this.

I'm going for a few pints and a few ciggies...

Anonymous said...

Excellent. Sent the URL to ASH!

Uncle Marvo said...

Thanks for the hat tip, Mr Iron. I will reciprocate.

Come on, kapnophobes everywhere! Unite!

Anonymous said...

All this talk about having to destroy and disgard any and all objects which a smoker may have come into contact with or was manufactured prior to the smoking ban law reminds me of those stories out of the Bible about Jesus and the Lepers. Seems one such Jesus Christ, son of God, was more than happy and thrilled to walk up, touch and heal the lepers - where-as the Pharisees and their kind liked to sit back spreading lies, rumors, gossip and basically what we today would call fake-science, if they would have had it then to spread, in order to force everyone into conformity with ways of living that quite frankly, the Lord God found the pathway to hell and nothing "good" about it, other than those who controlled the propaganda and thus had the "say so".

That's what it boils down to, on the basics. There's those who "say" and those who "believe" - only those who "say" are historically corrupted and of non-truth, of lies, of satan if one likes - where-as those who know the reality and believe the reality, the truth which is The Truth - then those are the ones on whose side God actually operates in this universe.

And anything else is just a distraction - such as we must now discard all manufactured goods prior to the smoking ban. Load of nonsense, BBC promoting satan essentially, then everyone wonder why the country's going down the tubes and EU is on ascent, an armagaddeon so to speak. Once a lie's crept in, as 'truth', then the pathway to hell's been paved - that's where the smoking ban is taking us.

Anonymous said...

The first Council or govt jobsworth trying to get through my front door to snoop will live to regret it - on second thoughts, strike out 'live' - they may not.

Leg-iron said...

They have a thousand laws that say you have to let them in.

As far as I can tell, they don't have one that says you have to let them out.

Start collecting.

Anonymous said...

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/

Chris said...

How long until the bill proposing that all smokers must wear a bell and dwell beyond the city limits in specially isolated "smokar houses"?

Anna Raccoon said...

Rats, you just beat me to it...

It's worth reading beyond the BBC piece though - there are some gems buried in the original report.

http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/smoking-ban-revenge-of-the-faglits/

microdave said...

Mr Leg Iron, I hope you don't use an Apple computer. They won't accept it back for repair if it smells of tobacco.

One good reason for sticking to M/S....

You said "Do you have kids?" - No thank God, or I would be in the coronary care unit by now:
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2010/02/thanks-for-your-kindness-pervert.html

Mrs R said...

I can't remember where I saw it, but late last year some blogs carried details of some proposed study - inside people's homes - where they had to have a gas cooker, not an electric one, and it was to do with smoking too. Spot the connection?

Leg-iron said...

Microdave - Fortunately I heard about Apple's hysterical fears before I owned any Apple products.

Now, I never will.


Mrs R - the study was in Aberdeen. I can't remember who spotted it first. They weren't asking for any non-smokers and weren't taking account of proximity to busy roads or anything else. There were no controls. Just pure smoker-bashing.

Not research. Just some number-generation designed to give a predetermined result. As usual.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Mrs R, I think you're talking about this article from li'l ole me.

Anonymous said...

I still maintain that these increasingly tenuous and fantastical claims are evidence of real desperation in the anti-smoking camp. Oh sure, this story is on the BBC website, but it hasn’t hit the headlines or the TV or radio news in the way that every new smoking-related health scare used to in pre-ban days. I hadn't even heard about it myself until I logged on here and, like many smokers in these post-ban times, I've developed a sort of sixth-sense around anti-smoking stories and can usually spot/hear/notice them even when they're buried away somewhere in a paper or at the end of the news. God, even the "halve the number of smokers by 2020" story – which was only one man’s viewpoint and not even a result of a “scientific” study - got more airtime than this.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – ASH and their little cohorts have done their time for their paymasters in pushing the ban through (my personal theory is that it was all about pubs in the first place, but I won’t go into that now) and they have now become nothing more than an expensive group of hangers-on which the Government are suddenly keen to offload. Oh no - drink’s the thing now, ASH, and Alcohol Concern looks all set to become the Government’s new “best friend.” Aw, shame! Couldn’t have happened to a nicer set of people ……

PS: The Nitrous Acid story looks interesting, but most of these linked articles don’t make a word of sense to me as a non-scientist. What is it, where does it come from, and how do you know that combining it with tobacco smoke makes it less harmful, Leggy? Sounds like a good one to bring into conversation with the local anti brigade, but only if I can make sense of it. Simple words of one syllable, pleeeeease!

Leg-iron said...

Don't worry about the antis. They don't understand it either.

It's formed by inefficient combustion, such as in a gas appliance with a blocked vent or that not-totally-efficient thing called an engine. It's not in tobacco smoke because burning a small amount of leaves in a lot of air means there's efficient combustion.

Nitrous acid is very reactive, which means it's always looking for something to combine with. It can only do that once. Then it's part of a different compound which might or might not be reactive but probably isn't.

Smoke is made of tiny particles. Electrofag 'smoke' isn't - it's just steam - but real smoke will settle on surfaces because it's actually a lot of tiny particles floating around. So when the gaseous form of nitrous acid hits a smoke particle, it's not only done its reacting, it's now stuck to a lump of stuff that's going to settle somewhere. A lump that has already done the 'reacting' part and can't do it again.

You can't breathe in settled particles unless you stir them up. Any house that makes routine use of a vacuum cleaner has put those particles in the bin.

If the nitrous acid doesn't find something to react with, it will float around until it does, and no vacuum cleaner will suck it out of the air. Lungs will. It will then react with DNA and once in a while, that reaction will start a cancer.

In effect, the report says that smoking (or even burning a candle) will reduce exposure to a far more dangerous substance - if it's present, which it really shouldn't be.

Are they getting desperate? More and more so. Frank Davis (link in sidebar) has often said that the whole thing will collapse when they push too far. I think he's right.

But then, pubs now face a drink ban and they've already started on soft drinks too.

Labour are really scared of pubs. They've even appointed a minister to make them die faster.

It won't work. Underground smoky drinky places are on the rise.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Leggy. God, I wish you'd been my science teacher at school - I might have got some impressive-sounding science-type exams then. OK, then, one good turn deserves another. I’ll be the Naughty Student who hasn’t done her homework, and you can be Teacher, this time ……

Nitrous Acid, eh? Does it come in aerosol form which we can squish at random in anti-smokers' faces every time they pass us by with a fake cough, by any chance?

Uncle Marvo said...

Dear Mr Iron

I have some more interesting news. There will be clever people than I who may wish to ratify my research.

I hope you don't mind me posting this link:

http://tiomarvo.blogspot.com/2010/02/amateur-chemists-guide-to-footshots.html

Uncle Marvo said...

I meant, obviously, cleverer. They would probably not have said clever when they meant cleverer, because the are clevererer.

Leg-iron said...

Anon - you don't want that stuff in your pocket. It's not pleasant, especially if it leaks.

Uncle Marvo - good link. If nicotine is as deadly as ASH say, then surely those patches and gum constitute deliberate poisoning, if not attempted murder?

opinions powered by SendLove.to