puff at your own risk

[bedbugy1-old]

BangkokPost.com) - Smokers have been warned that lighting up could cost them 2,000 baht.


The deputy director-general of the Disease Control Department, Seri Hongyok, said those who light up at public transportation stations and other non-smoking areas will be fined on the spot


A large number of commuters are expected to travel during the Songkran holiday and many will ignore smoking regulations, he said

that will be 300 baht thank you another nice earner from the men in brown

As a lifetime non-smoker I always think it would be quicker and easier just to burn a few banknotes rather than rot my chest.

You think there are no toxic emissions from burning banknotes?
Additionally, at least in Thailand, you will go to prison for a long time for defacing His Majesty, The King's image if you get caught destroying any currency.

Be careful what you wish for. Social crusaders usually end up creating even worse hells than those they are trying to eradicate.

Just for the record, I am a non-smoker, do not drink alcohol or take illicit drugs, and am a vegetarian, but I hardly expect others to follow my example, for better or for worse. Moreover, I am more than a bit concerned about the attempts to legislate every aspect of human behaviour, and the people who suggest we try to do so frighten me no end.

[Davey612]

I am sure there is going to an ongoing discussion about what are the rights of a smoker. For a long time, I did not care much about what a cigarrete smoker did in public. If that person wants to perforate his or her lungs, it is his or her right.

Well, it was not until recently when a nephew in the medical field pointed to me about the dangers of the smoke that comes my way from someone else's cigarrete. In his view, second hand smoke is worse than the smoke inhaled by the smoker. Why? Because we are inhaling without the benefit of the filter.

I don't really know how much of the chemicals dissipate before reaching my lungs. I am not a scientist. However, if legislation can minimize my exposure to someone's smoke, then I am for it.

This is a link to the Mayo clinic's view of second hand smoke. Kind of scary: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/second ... ke/CC00023 (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023)

Here we go again... It must have been, oh, at least a couple of weeks since the rights, wrongs, polite, rude, moral and immoral aspects of smoking in public areas were discussed here.

I've said before that I'm not a smoker, never have been, but I very much support free will, and am very much against the 'nanny state'. If people enjoy smoking, then good for them. I don't understand it myself, but then, I don't understand lots of aspects about other people's lives. Being attracted to people with large breasts, child bearing hips and a gaping hole where a penis should be, to name one example.

I am sure there is going to an ongoing discussion about what are the rights of a smoker. For a long time, I did not care much about what a cigarrete smoker did in public. If that person wants to perforate his or her lungs, it is his or her right.

Well, it was not until recently when a nephew in the medical field pointed to me about the dangers of the smoke that comes my way from someone else's cigarrete. In his view, second hand smoke is worse than the smoke inhaled by the smoker. Why? Because we are inhaling without the benefit of the filter.

I don't really know how much of the chemicals dissipate before reaching my lungs. I am not a scientist. However, if legislation can minimize my exposure to someone's smoke, then I am for it.

This is a link to the Mayo clinic's view of second hand smoke. Kind of scary: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/second ... ke/CC00023 (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023)

Do you have any idea of what vehicle emissions are doing to your precious lungs? You poor dear!
India and China are developing at breakneck speed and every one of their citizens wants a car. Tata is about to bring out a car for US$2500. It will not be sold in Western Europe or Canada and the USA since it doesn't even come close to meeting the emission standards. But no emission standards are enforced in China, India and in most countries of the world for that matter. Already a huge percentage of California's pollution finds it origin in China. You better pass some laws against all those people who will be using those cheap and polluting cars.

Do you also worry about the fish farms all over the world that are selling food with toxic levels of deadly chemicals?

The list is endless! But people are very bad at risk assessment and hence spend their lives fretting about things that are almost absurd. The real threats almost always go unnoticed.

But look, pass all the laws you want. Execute people for doing all the things you think are bad for us. Lock up Ratan Tata for producing the cheapest car in the world that is going to sell in the millions.

You said: "if legislation can minimize my exposure to someone's smoke, then I am for it." More laws! Oh... please protect me from the world. And if that doesn't work, invoke religious fundamentalism! It worked for Bush. It worked for the Aytollahas! It can work for you!

ROTFL

[sjaak327]

Was in Hongkong a few weeks back. Made my way over to the Kowloon side to make pictures of the HK skyline. They have a walkway just after the star ferry terminal. Most of it is non smoking, even though it is in the open air. But many parks, and public spaces around HK are non smoking.

The pictures were not that good since the smog was obstructing the view of the skyline a few KM away. Made me think, all that air pollution (Bangkok doesn't come close on this one, believe me) and yet I cannot smoke in the outside air. As if my cigarette will make it any worse already.

The world really has gone mad when it comes to smoking.

yes I am sure that car will have a really bad impact on the level of pollution, scaring to think every Indian, Chinese or in fact Thai family will drive in their own car. Is it possible to make a law against that car?. I don't have the number just now, but a big scaring number of people, die every year because of the particles from diesel trunks.
I also think we should forbid the burning of shit in India, as it have a very bad impact on the world climate. Not to forget all the gas coming from the same animal that deliver the shit.
Oh one think I forgot and is on my agenda, forbid flying especially intercontinental. All this big machines that fly up there in the air, are polluting seriously and soon many small island will not be there anymore because of the raising water in the oceans. Okay then I have to go to Bangkok via Kabul on bicycle, and oh horror we will all miss the crowd of sextourist in Pattaya.
The question is not always how the guy or woman next to you are polluting, but what are yourself doing not to pollute to much. Let us give each other a promise. Next time we arrive in the LOS by boat from Europe or the US. We will not take the taxi or bus to reach Pattaya, but we will walk from bkk to the city of sin hand in hand shouting "hallelujah we are sawing the world,we are the examples to follow"

[dab69]

I am sure there is going to an ongoing discussion about what are the rights of a smoker. For a long time, I did not care much about what a cigarrete smoker did in public. If that person wants to perforate his or her lungs, it is his or her right.

Well, it was not until recently when a nephew in the medical field pointed to me about the dangers of the smoke that comes my way from someone else's cigarrete. In his view, second hand smoke is worse than the smoke inhaled by the smoker. Why? Because we are inhaling without the benefit of the filter.

I don't really know how much of the chemicals dissipate before reaching my lungs. I am not a scientist. However, if legislation can minimize my exposure to someone's smoke, then I am for it.

This is a link to the Mayo clinic's view of second hand smoke. Kind of scary: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/second ... ke/CC00023 (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023)



Maybe I do not scientifically agree
with Davey612's facts,
but I wholeheartedly
DO support his gorgeous avatar....

Outstanding

Hi,

As a person who knows only too well the hazards of smoking at learning first hand the damage and effects they have,

I would not now allow smoking in my car or House only.

I would not and will not lecture people on the plus or minus benefits either.

Public places, I would never criticize or complain as I feel it is not my right. If I can choose in my space or areas, my choices are as above.

Birdcage, because of the new legislation coming into law, we have operated a non smoking policy from the start with a smokers terrace and balcony provided which is in use and working to everyone's satisfaction.

I do agree with the posters who refer to the massive health hazards from Industrial pollution, cars and smog caused by the waste from factories etc and the many hazards bellowing out of Mines and Industrial plants which I think should be higher on the Health agendas of most Countries.

[Aunty]

Smokers should have no 'rights' other than the right to purchase tobacco and use it in the privacy of their own home or car.

The last time I was in a bar in Thailand I don't recall a motorway running through it, but I do remember the smokers.

The last time I was in a bar in Thailand I don't recall a motorway running through it, but I do remember the smokers.

Perhaps if you were sober enough to remember how you made your way to and from the said bar, you might recall a few roads along the way?

The last time I was in a bar in Thailand I don't recall a motorway running through it, but I do remember the smokers.

Perhaps if you were sober enough to remember how you made your way to and from the said bar, you might recall a few roads along the way?

Not to mention the people walking in the streets, or the people making food on Rama IV in BKK. Every day they inhale so many particles from cars and tuk-tuks. Where is the perspective?

I understand that people don't like to be passive smokers, and I know it it not healthy to smoke. But each person has his own agenda, and I am sure that the general pollution of the world, kill more people than being a passive smoker. I think the big problems of the world make many to think of the small. Moral Majority again and again. It is so easy to point the finger at one problem, and then forget the total environment and the situation of the world. Al Gore have you forgot him and his movie?

[Davey612]

Hi,

As a person who knows only too well the hazards of smoking at learning first hand the damage and effects they have,


Hi Kevin, I met you a few years ago when you were in the middle of fighting that terrible disease. I am glad that everything turn out fine with you. At that time, you almost did not have a voice.

As for the other posters who are trying to change the subject and talk about pollution in general, well, sure please go ahead and do so. There is no denying that industrialized societies are gross polluters. The question is whether you are willing to pay to minimize it.

If you want Thailand to be a less polluting country, would you be willing to pay an extra 500 Baht to ride in a car with correct emission controls? Do you think the owner of the taxi will voluntarily, out of the kindness of his or her heart, invest in a more expensive vehicle? Most likely not. Most likely it will require government subsidies, incentives and directives. Like everything else, fighting pollution involves cost benefit analysis.

I have nothing else to add about the ban of smoking in public places. Obviously, my idea of benefits versus the cost of such a ban is different than some posters here. I know that nicotine is a drug that is highly addictive and it is difficult to quit. But please, don't try to trivialize second hand smoke because you think there are bigger pollution issues. I am sure you would think otherwise if a loved one gets sick because of inhaling the smoke coming out of your cigarretes.

Hi,

As a person who knows only too well the hazards of smoking at learning first hand the damage and effects they have,


Hi Kevin, I met you a few years ago when you were in the middle of fighting that terrible disease. I am glad that everything turn out fine with you. At that time, you almost did not have a voice.

As for the other posters who are trying to change the subject and talk about pollution in general, well, sure please go ahead and do so. There is no denying that industrialized societies are gross polluters. The question is whether you are willing to pay to minimize it.

If you want Thailand to be a less polluting country, would you be willing to pay an extra 500 Baht to ride in a car with correct emission controls? Do you think the owner of the taxi will voluntarily, out of the kindness of his or her heart, invest in a more expensive vehicle? Most likely not. Most likely it will require government subsidies, incentives and directives. Like everything else, fighting pollution involves cost benefit analysis.

I have nothing else to add about the ban of smoking in public places. Obviously, my idea of benefits versus the cost of such a ban is different than some posters here. I know that nicotine is a drug that is highly addictive and it is difficult to quit. But please, don't try to trivialize second hand smoke because you think there are bigger pollution issues. I am sure you would think otherwise if a loved one gets sick because of inhaling the smoke coming out of your cigarretes.

Hi davey
I sympathy with your thinking, and I know passive smoking is not healthy, but kquill was an active smoker. But in fact I would have no idea, from where my loved had got his/her sicknes, and even the doctors can not, if they are honest, --I have sadly been there.
I have just seen I an article that there are between 120 and 720 people dying in Denmark every year, because of diesel particles from cars, and we are only 5 millions.
I really don't' believe that so many will die, because they from time to time, visit a bar where it is allowed to smoke. I don't want a fight, we have had them all to often about this issue, but I really believe deeply that we should see it in a broader term.

Love from Hansi

Smokers should have no 'rights' other than the right to purchase tobacco and use it in the privacy of their own home or car.


And if your home or car has small or infant children in it? Should children be unwittingly made to breathe second hand smoke just because it is an adult's right to smoke in his own home? What about the neighbors? The apartment next door?

Smokers should have no 'rights' other than the right to purchase tobacco and use it in the privacy of their own home or car.


And if your home or car has small or infant children in it? Should children be unwittingly made to breathe second hand smoke just because it is an adult's right to smoke in his own home? What about the neighbors? The apartment next door?

I am sure no one thinki t is smart to give the children secon second hand smoke, I would never do this.
But keep them from the roads and streest the cars are driving in. A gasmask maybe? :-)

I am sure no one thinki t is smart to give the children secon second hand smoke, I would never do this.

Well I have seen parents leaving a burning cigarette in an ash tray on a table with a kid in the high chair and know that everyone rolls up the windows if the A/C is on (something that I have never felt to be very necessary - I enjoy the fresh air and a/c when I'm driving. ) whether the kida are in the car or not. YOU? sure. Me? too. But not many others.

But the law seems only intended to get the "government" involved in businesses and though I'm for nonsmoking, and appreciate the cleaner air, I think the law should be more extensive and better thought out.

Hi,

Thanks Davey,

The Doctors have stated they do not believe the cancer is going to return.

I have however, made a great many lifestyle changes to ensure I have the best chance.

What I can state for the benefit of the board, is I now have a filter in my throat area, which many in Pattaya have seen to protect my lungs, which basically acts like your nose.

When in Bangkok and Pattaya, I must change these filters and steam this area, two to three times a day changing and carrying spare filters. This is down to walking around the aforementioned places.

In Kalasin, I steam once a day, to keep my airways clean and clear and change the filter once every two days.

That is passive inhalation of toxic fumes and chemicals caused by pollution and is equally as dangerous.

If you had a choice,with the air you breathe, would you live in Toronto or Bangkok?

Regards smokers, I am merely trying to point out I could not be so thick skinned to tell other people in public places how to behave, when I was as bad and worse, as a smoker than many others.

I am now coming up for two years non smoking and will not ever be going back to it.

Strong education in Schools may help in this area,making it a compulsory learning subject just like Maths and English, when they could address this and other things such as STD's, Environment impact,eco friendly issues, the Rain forests and tree planting etc and make the kids aware, a benefit I did not have.

Also, give massive incentives in business to "Go Green" say 10 year plans of tax breaks, bonuses and benefits, as well as making these areas affordable and accessible, We can't afford not to.!!

In my teens, not that long ago!,, No one talked about the environment, Global warming was not heard of, nor was a carbon footprint and smoking was considered trendy, as all the movie stars did it. Most people who didn't smoke did it for the costs involved and that was always the thoughts and reasons given when they stopped, what they could do with the extra money!

Damage to lungs and passive smoking were never mentioned.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/luxhello.gif Yay, just what we needed, another thread about smoking. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/rolleyes.gif


George.

Most governments seem happy to allow people to kill or injure themselves by smoking, so they can reap the benefits of tax, both from the smoker and the producer. Ugly pictures on packets doesn't detract from that fact that states everywhere allow the public sale of cancer inducing and addictive drugs. Cigarettes should be in the same drug catagory as heroin or cocaine. They kill.

Oh yes... I see what a great job has been done with heroin and cocaine! Since Nixon began the "War on drugs" the USA alone has spent over a Trillion dollars and the situation has only become worse... much worse! Legislation doesn't work, police and prisons don't work and the so-called education programs are a joke.

And you want more of the same, fattman?

ROTFL

Cigarettes should be in the same drug catagory as heroin or cocaine. They kill.

I think it would be better to question why such drugs as heroin and cocaine are illegal and tobacco and alcohol are not.

I am sick to death of governments, along with do goodies, giving out wrong information to the mainstream about drugs. They do this by using scare tactics, false statistics and by telling, downright fucking lies. They are doing this whilst at the same time, reaping the benefits of millions of dollars in taxes, from the sale of alcohol and tobacco.

Last Years Annual causes for Deaths in the United States.

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reaction to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,305
Sexual Behaviours 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, as in Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Although alcohol and tobacco are out there in a league of their own, death caused as a result of drugs, was with the exception of one cause of fatalities, the lowest in the league table. Even deaths caused as a result of poor diet and physical inactivity, is over 21 more times the number, than it is for drugs.

Guns were responsible for almost 70 per cent more deaths than drugs and in making them illegal, it would make a lot more sense to me than keeping drugs illegal.

I am not suggesting for a minute that everyone should rush out to buy some drugs, but instead rather hoping, that they will put the risks of indulging in them into perspective, when comparing them with far greater dangers.


Choc Dee,


George.

[jinks]

Bring back prohibition and extend it to ban everything that everybody enjoys.

Just think...

Back street Speak Easi's with a smoky alcohol full atmosphere.

The also banned Go Go and Coyote boys dancing.

Selling food with real butter, fresh cream and other high cholesterol ingredients.

........I'm not expert in such things, .......

Just Sanctimonious :withstupid:

Bring back prohibition and extend it to ban everything that everybody enjoys.

Just think...

Back street Speak Easi's with a smoky alcohol full atmosphere.

The also banned Go Go and Coyote boys dancing.

Selling food with real butter, fresh cream and other high cholesterol ingredients.

I like this idea jinks! Make everything illegal! We are well on our way there already... why stop now? We can see what a great solution it has been!

Only remember that the French who love real butter, fresh cream and so forth, have a very low incidence of cardiovascular disease. Many think this is because they drink so much of their own fine red wine. Now there's a health tip I can live with!
I'm on my way down to that new bar to have a drink right now.

Cigarettes should be in the same drug catagory as heroin or cocaine. They kill.

I think it would be better to question why such drugs as heroin and cocaine are illegal and tobacco and alcohol are not.

I am sick to death of governments, along with do goodies, giving out wrong information to the mainstream about drugs. They do this by using scare tactics, false statistics and by telling, downright fucking lies. They are doing this whilst at the same time, reaping the benefits of millions of dollars in taxes, from the sale of alcohol and tobacco.

Last Years Annual causes for Deaths in the United States.

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reaction to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,305
Sexual Behaviours 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, as in Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Although alcohol and tobacco are out there in a league of their own, death caused as a result of drugs, was with the exception of one cause of fatalities, the lowest in the league table. Even deaths caused as a result of poor diet and physical inactivity, is over 21 more times the number, than it is for drugs.

Guns were responsible for almost 70 per cent more deaths than drugs and in making them illegal, it would make a lot more sense to me than keeping drugs illegal.

I am not suggesting for a minute that everyone should rush out to buy some drugs, but instead rather hoping, that they will put the risks of indulging in them into perspective, when comparing them with far greater dangers.


Choc Dee,


George.

George, don't you remember the American General from the Vietnam period who claimed he had to "destroy the village to save it"? And the Watergate conspirator who told the Congressional Investigation Committee "Don't confuse me with the facts"?

I think fattman has these historical precedents in mind when he is making his suggestions.

[Aunty]

And if your home or car has small or infant children in it? Should children be unwittingly made to breathe second hand smoke just because it is an adult's right to smoke in his own home? What about the neighbors? The apartment next door?

Well given that smokers don't care about their own health anyway, they are hardly going to care much about their children's health are they?

Mind you if a law was passed that made it illegal to smoke in the same enclosed space where a child under the age of 16 was present, (e.g., car, room in the house) I'd support that.



Largest Ever Asian Smoking Study Reveals Cardiovascular Health Risks

ScienceDaily (Sep. 21, 2005) тАФ The largest ever study of smoking in the Asia Pacific Region, and one of the largest smoking studies ever conducted anywhere in the world, has dispelled a long-held myth that smokers in Asian populations are less susceptible than Western populations to the risks of smoking, such as coronary heart disease and stroke.

A paper from the George Institute for International Health on the outcomes of the study, due to be published shortly in the International Journal of Epidemiology, notes that the belief amongst Asian countries that smoking is less harmful to them than to Caucasian populations may contribute to the high prevalence of smoking in Asian countries, the low quitting rates amongst Asian male smokers, and the spread of smoking among Asian women.

Prof. Mark Woodward, Director of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the George Institute, who lead the study, points out that "the study, which involved data analysis of almost 500,000 Asians and 100,000 Australasians, shows that smoking poses the same risks to Asian men (and an even greater risk to Asian women) as compared to Western populations. The study also makes clear that there are real benefits to be gained, in terms of huge numbers of lives to be saved, by effectively implementing campaigns in Asia to quit smoking."

"This is particularly so amongst women, where use of tobacco is still spreading worldwide and for whom smoking has the greatest detrimental impact. Therefore, any anti tobacco campaigns in Asia should include messages specifically targeted at women," said Prof. Woodward

Importantly, the study also showed that smoking is an independent risk factor for haemorrhagic stroke, the most common type of stroke in Asia and more likely than ischaemic stroke to lead to death within a short period. The large numbers of individuals included in the study make the overall estimates of the relative effects of smoking more precise than those in most previous studies. The results also show that younger people and women have greater relative risks of cardiovascular disease from smoking than others. It is estimated that there will be over 500 million female smokers worldwide within 20 years.
Most importantly, the study found that Asians have an increased proportional cardiovascular risk similar to Westerners from smoking cigarettes, and a similar relative reduction in risk from quitting.

"Unfortunately, there is a belief in some parts of Asia that sudden quitting can be harmful to health, and the rate of quitting amongst Asian smokers is quite low. This can be partly blamed on a lack of previous evidence on the benefits of quitting, yet this study shows that the benefits for Asians is the same as for Australasians, in terms of reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Public health efforts to limit tobacco use are therefore urgently needed in Asia," Prof. Woodward said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 081615.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050921081615.htm)





Quitting Smoking Reduces Risk Of Lung Cancer Mortality By 70 Percent

ScienceDaily (March 26, 2007) тАФ Giving up smoking is highly effective in preventing death from lung cancer and can reduce the risk of dying from the disease by up to 70%. In addition, new research from the Asia-Pacific region confirms that cigarette smoking substantially increases the risk of dying from lung cancer in both Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) and Asia, and importantly highlights the continuing popularity of cigarette smoking across large parts of Asia, including China, where the harmful effects of smoking are still not widely appreciated.

In the study of 500,000 adults, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, the Asia-Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration (APCSC) shows that the risks of dying from lung cancer were about twenty times higher among women who smoke compared with male smokers, a worrying finding given the increasing trend for women to take up the habit in many countries.

The research paper's author, Dr Rachel Huxley, Director of Nutrition and Lifestyle at The George Institute for International Health (part of the APCSC Secretariat) said, "The importance of developing effective comprehensive tobacco control policies is highlighted by our research, which shows that if interventions only focus on prevention, then 160 million current smokers will die before 2050, with the vast majority of deaths occurring in China."

"Inadequate knowledge of both the harmful effects of cigarette smoking and of the benefits associated with quitting is likely to explain much of the continuing popularity of smoking among men in China, where there are an estimated 320 million smokers. There are huge numbers of lives to be saved through campaigns to alert current smokers to the dangers of their habit." Dr Huxley added.

"Effective action in Asia would help to head off a significant part of the projected one billion deaths from smoking that will otherwise occur around the world this century," she said.

The APCSC is conducting the largest-ever study of cardiovascular and other non-communicable diseases in the Asian region. Project partners included many medical institutions across the Asia Pacific region.

The Collaboration's primary goal is to provide direct, reliable evidence about the determinants of stroke, coronary heart disease, and other common causes of death in Asia-Pacific populations. It aims to produce region-, age- and sex-specific estimates of the cardiovascular disease risks associated with blood pressure, smoking, cholesterol, diabetes and other major risk factors.

This APCSC research project was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer Inc.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 105016.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323105016.htm)

Non-Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma. Note also the unattractive dark cigarette stained lung tissue.
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee266/Aunties_photos/AdenoCaLung2p.jpg

Car Pollution Increases the Cancer Risk.

February 8th, 2008 . by www.healthsiteblog.com (http://www.healthsiteblog.com)

Cancer Epidemic



1864 French chemist LOUIS PASTEUR discovered numerous microbiological elements and had established the connection between bacteria and disease.

2007 itтАЩs time to reveal the connection between cancer and Toxic Alpha Radioactive Material (TARM) in oil and gas products.

Cancer strikes nearly 1 in every 2 men and more 1 in every 3 women.
An estimated 7.6 million people died of cancer in 2005 and over 100 million people will die in the next 10 years, and the mortality rate is growing at epidemic proportions.

Whats the reason? The poison is in the gas and car pollution. ItтАЩs Toxic Alpha Radioactive Material (TARM) THE most toxic materials in our world.

http://www.healthsiteblog.com/2008/02/0 ... -products/ (http://www.healthsiteblog.com/2008/02/08/cancer-and-toxic-alpha-radioactive-material-tarm-in-oil-and-gas-products/)

http://www.ewg.org/reports/sids

Within the next two weeks, the EPA will finalize new regulations that will cut air pollution levels in half over the next ten years, including the particle air pollution associated with SIDS in the Woodruff study. EPA estimates that these microscopic airborne particles (PM10) penetrate deep into the lungs and cause 35,000 premature deaths in the United States each year. Influential
members of Congress have threatened to overturn the new regulations, and polluting industries are waging an all-out fight to block the new health standards.

Quitting drinking/driving/sex/fatty foods/walking in the dark streets will increase your lifespan by many years and reduce the chance of having an accident by a huge %.

... apparently he's known as the man who thinks the world is his ashtray - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/opinion/06dowd.html