[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Humans Raise Risk of Europe Heatwaves:
I am not merely skeptical about your remark. I flat out strongly assert
that it is just plain wrong. It is just about as wrong as any statement
can possibly be. Every nuance that it might suggest is also terribly
wrong. Turn it sideways or upside down and it will still be wrong. I'm
sorry that I wasn't clear in my earlier response. I once knew a smoker who
had just had a cancerous lung removed. He was smoking about three months
later. He had no illusions about why his lung had been removed. He just
liked to smoke and figured that the lung that he had left was stronger than
the one that had been removed. That is what I refer to as "smokers logic".
I have learned from harsh and repeated personal experience that lawyers
(and those who "work" with lawyers) cannot EVER be trusted and that they
absolutely never should be even considered to be telling the truth when
they are presenting a case. This statement is a perfect illustration of
that concept: "It would be wrong to imagine, though, that knowledge of
these hazards quickly became common knowledge. Few people read the
technical medical literature, and even when people did read or hear about
'the cancer scare,' they also heard--repeatedly and from various
sources--that smoking was safe." Of course it would be wrong to IMAGINE
it. Nobody with an ounce of sense should have to IMAGINE that it was
common knowledge. That is because one does not have to IMAGINE truths that
are hopping up and down and yelling in front of one. Notice that Proctor
wrote that the HEARD that it was "safe" not that anybody believed it. The
above two sentences are perfect examples of how one can get people to
accept falsehoods without making a false statement. The art of misleading
without lying.
Only a lawyer arguing a case could stoop so low as to write the above
stunningly misleading sentences with a straight face. Of course he
probably didn't have a straight face while he wrote it. He probably had to
take a few laughing breaks while he wrote it. All lawyers are trained for
years on how to trick and mislead people. That is their job. So, in
addition to their academic training they hone trickery by years of
practice. A really "good" lawyer also has some natural talent along those
lines.
In 1960, everybody who knew the difference between dung and shinola or the
difference between their lower rear opening and a hole in the ground knew
that tobacco use was bad for them and could kill them. I didn't simply
write a report in the eighth grade. I and some other students presented a
whole program to a student assembly demonstrating the various ways that
smoking could harm them. We presented the program as part of a continuing
school campaign to reduce or prevent smoking by kids. Then we answered
questions afterwards. Later when I smoked, I knew it was bad for me and so
did all the other kids that I smoked with. As kids we talked about the
possible benefits of various types of filters and speculated about how many
cancer sticks or coffin nails we could use without causing immediate of
long term harm. We would joke about how smokers would get winded much
faster than those who didn't smoke.
I will argue as strongly as humanly possible against such trash as was
written by the money-grubbing Proctor. I was alive back than, unlike many
massively ignorant people who believe such Proctorganda today. It was
common knowledge in 1960 that tobacco use was harmful. There is simply no
room for doubt about that. I know because I was a common kid at the time
and I knew, as well as everybody whom I knew. The terms "coffin nails" and
"cancer sticks" were commonly used by smokers. It is not possible for
someone to smoke and believe that smoking could soothe the throat. When I
was in the Navy in 1968, the officer in the bunk below me in our stateroom
started his day with a cigarette. When reville was announced, his hand
would reach out and feel around for a cigarette. Then it would reach out
and feel around for his lighter. Then I would hear the lighter click and
smell the lighter fluid. Then there would be a moment of silence and he
would cough harshly three or four times as I smelled the smoke. Then
silence and another three or four coughs.
Don Kosloff
Perry OH
farbersa
<farbersa@optonli To: dckosloff@firstenergycorp.com, "radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu"
ne.net> <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
cc:
12/02/2004 08:52 Subject: Re: Humans Raise Risk of Europe Heatwaves:
PM
Hi Don:
Regarding your scepticism about my remark quoted in your post below, I
have no doubt you were aware that there was substantial anti-smoking
knowlege when you wrote your 8th grade paper in 1961. However, before you
argue too strongly that my comment about physicians and other scientists
continuing to claim smoking was safe long after much scientific
information to the contrary was known, you should read the following
excerpt from the source url cited below and the excerpt from the following
report.
======================
"Tobacco and Health"
Expert Witness Report Filed on behalf of Plaintiffs in:
"The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al.,
Defendants," Civil Action No. 99-CV-02496 (GK) (Federal case)*
By
Robert N. Proctor
http://www.psljournal.com/archives/papers/tobacco.cfm
"It would be wrong to imagine, though, that knowledge of these hazards
quickly became common knowledge. Few people read the technical medical
literature, and even when people did read or hear about "the cancer
scare," they also heard--repeatedly and from various sources--that smoking
was safe. Cigarettes were widely advertised on billboards and in magazines
and newspapers, and increasingly in movie theaters, on radio, and on
television. Popular sports figures, movie stars, and other high-profile
personalities appeared in thousands of cheery tobacco ads with never a
mention of a hazard. Ronald Reagan and Joe Dimaggio advertised cigarettes
in the 1940s, as did Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in the 1950s. Perry Como,
Jimmy Stewart, Frank Sinatra, and football and golf greats Frank Gifford
and Arnold Palmer all appeared in tobacco ads--along with many other
popular athletes, singers, media personalities. Popular pro-smoking books
reported the testimony of physicians that tobacco was safe or that the
hazards had been exaggerated.[26] Millions of Americans were led to
believe that cigarettes were satisfying, sexy, and safe.
Part of this sense of safety came from the fact that the tobacco industry
spent a lot of time and money to establish the image that smoking was
safe. Doctors were used to advertise cigarettes, and smoking brand x, y,
or z was said to help "soothe the throat" or "aid digestion" or "keep you
alert," etc. These early "white-coat" advertisements claimed many health
virtues for cigarettes: Belairs let you "breathe easy" (1960); Camels
"never get on your nerves" (1934) and don't "get your wind" (1935); Kools
were "soothing to your throat" (1937); L&M Filters were "just what the
doctor ordered" (1953); Old Gold you smoked "for a treat, instead of a
treatment"; Larks had filters packed with "the basic material science uses
to purify air"; women were told to "reach for a Lucky instead of a
sweet"--and so forth. Philip Morris cigarettes were supposed to provide
"pleasure without penalties" (1941) and to take "the fear out of smoking"
(1953); Camels were good for a supposed "T-Zone--Throat and Taste." [27]"
References cited in above excerpt:
[26] Many examples of American physicians taking such a stand are reported
in Lloyd Mallan, It Is Safe to Smoke (New York: Hawthorn, 1966). Mallan
also records Senator Bass's response, after hearing conflicting testimony
in Senate Commerce Committee hearings of March 1965: "What impresses me,
then--and the conclusion that I reach as a layman--is that there seems to
be still a great deal of doubt as to the cause of cancer" (p. 140).
[27] A B&W document listing 186 different health slogans used in cigarette
ads can be found in "A Review of Health References in Cigarette
Advertising, 1927-1964," Bates #696000889.
=========
As an aside, for those who are unfamiliar with some lesser known aspects
of the Nazi regime, it did not just have a vigorous anti-smoking campaign
which you mentioned [using extreme anti-Semitic advertising, blaming Jews
for pushing cigarettes on the Germans by the way!], but the Nazis had a
very active public health campaign to educate the German people about the
hazards of elevated radon and asbestos exposure to workers and members of
the public. For reference see: The Nazi War Against Cancer by Proctor:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691070512/002-3527910-4356004?v=glance
Stewart Farber
=============
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:57:43 -0500, <dckosloff@firstenergycorp.com> wrote:
> I really hate to disagree with Stewart Farber. However, this is an
> absurd
> statement that cannot be supported: "I have no
> doubt that the tobacco industry back in the late 1950s to early 1960s
> [before the Surgeon General issued his first detailed report in 1964 [?]
> about the hazards of cigaretee smoking], could have gotten 17,000
> physicians and "scientists" to sign a petition that cigarette smoking had
> no adverse effects on health if it had bothered to try."
>
> In 1961, when I was in the 8th grade I gave a report on smoking to all
> the
> 7th and 8th graders in my school. There was no doubt at that time that
> there was a strong relationship between cigarete smoking and poor health.
> I had no difficulty gathering substantial anti-smoking information at the
> time. That is hardly surprising since tobacco use had been known to be
> bad
> for health for decades.....
-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal
and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately,
and delete the original message.
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/