Cancer Sticks

["D. Kosloff" <dkosloff@ncweb.com>]

When I was in the 8th grade in the 60's I showed the middle schoolers the
actual damage to the lungs of a frog that we somehow forced to smoke some
cancer sticks, as we called them.  They were called coffin nails at least
since the 1920's.  None of that stopped me from experimenting with them.
Maybe some people become addicted to nicotine or maybe it is an excuse.  The
smoker manipulates his dosage by rate and number of cancer sticks consumed
regardless of the nicotine in the coffin nail.  I remember smoking a low
nicotine cigarette as a teenager, we threw the pack away even though it took
us a little effort to get our smokes.  Manipulate is a propaganda word.
Even if tobacco bosses were angels it would have made sense for them to
adjust the nicotine content of their product so that the dope fiends would
know what to expect.  Even health advocates were concerned that a low
nicotine coffin nail would just increase consumption.

If the cigarettes I smoked kill me (unlikely), it is my fault, nobody forced
me to smoke a single cigarette.  Nobody forced the US government to sell
cigarettes at a discount to members of the armed forces either.

However, they should be marked with a radiation warning.

Don Kosloff mailto:dkosloff@ncweb.com
2910 Main St, Perry OH 44081

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Flood <bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Uranium Workers Used in Experiments


> At 05:00 PM 2/9/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >Can you imagine a junkie saying "geez, I'd
> >never have gotten addicted had that mean old dealer not given me
> >such strong smack!"
>
> >you made the conscious decision to
> >use a known-beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt killing and addictive
> >product
>
> Incorrect
>
> Check up on the history of this subject. No one even accused the
> tobacconists of manipulating nicotine until the 80's, at which time the
> industry vehemently denied it. In the 90's the smoking gun (pun intended)
> was discovered, internal documentation showing the industry knew of the
> addictive qualities and modified the product to take advantage of it. The
> heroin addict doesn't have much of an excuse for not knowing the stuff is
> addictive. But the tobacco industry worked long and hard and invested
> extraordinary amounts of money to keep their activities quiet. And they
> succeeded for a long time. The ultimate release of their internal
documents
> demonstrating what they'd done is what changed everything for the industry
> in the court decision - your logic had been successfully used to defend
> every smoker lawsuit for decades until they were found to have
deliberately
> altered the addictive qualities.
>
> >Am I going to have to compensate all the lard-asses out there
> >because they ate too much, got fat and had a heart attack?
>
> That's a bit farther afield than I care to go.
>
> >Here in Tennessee, the state's share of the booty is already
> >being included in the general budget.  Just another revenue stream.
>
> Well, I can understand why it might seem a good idea to apply the money to
> the ailing Tenncare system - lot's of states are in the same situation.
But
> I can also see it being dropped into the general revenue pot, too - after
> all, that's where it came from to begin with. Remember, the money that the
> states are getting is recovery on money that states have been spending on
> this for years.
>
> >Given that, then I consider their refusing
> >life saving medical procedures involving radiation to be Darwinism
> >at its finest.  I will spend my political effort toward preventing
> >the state from using my tax dollars to coddle them in their death
> >throes in the aftermath of their decisions.  Let them live with the
> >consequences of their stupidity.
>
> Well, you acknowledge the misinformation - you even used to fight it. But
> you gave up, and now those who will be most harmed by the continued
> misinformation deserve to die, huh?
>
> Check the schools and see who receives any education about radiation. No
> one. Even in college, if you don't study it on purpose, you will be taught
> nothing about radiation. Why should a population that is untrained on the
> subject be punished for not being able to make critical informed
judgements
> about the subject? Sure hope it isn't someone in your family. No need to
> answer, that was all rhetorical.
>
> Over and out.
>
> Bob Flood
> Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
> bflood@slac.stanford.edu
> (650) 926-3793
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html