Friday, January 23, 2009
So-called "smoking-related" illnesses are effects of pesticides...And more
Pesticide Industry War On Mothers
by John Jonik
So-called "smoking-related" illnesses are effects of pesticides, and dioxin
The coordinated, corporate-funded global campaign to ignore, hide, andsteal evidence of the harms of industrial chemicals is particularlyhypocritical, callous and vicious when it comes to mothers andchildren. There is an intensified push lately to focus the anti-tobacco crusade on mothers who smoke, and on mothers and kids who maybe exposed to second-hand, and even third-hand smoke. ("Third hand"refers to smoke scent left behind on fabrics and so forth.) There areeven moves afoot to separate children from their own mothers if themother happens to smoke. (1) This is serious business.
That tobacco is one of the most pesticide-contaminated agriculturalproducts is a topic too big, too complicated, or too itchy to addressin most forums, so far. (2)
There are no moves to separate toxic and carcinogenic and immune-damaging chemicals from what most mothers (and others) believe, andare told, are just tobacco products. And, there are no moves toseparate the complicit industries from easily trillions of dollars inpenalties and liabilities for what they have done to tobacco and tounwitting, abysmally unprotected, deceived, and Guinea-pigged smokers,mothers included.
The anti-smoking, tobacco prohibition movement is based on "research"that studies effects of using smoking products that are not describedor analyzed. "Cigarette" studies do not describe the kind of cigarette(organic or not), or the industrial adulterants. (3) "Smoke" isstudied, without description of what exactly is being burned."Tobacco" is studied, without qualification regarding any non-tobaccoadulteration or even if the smoking product contains any tobacco,there being numerous U.S. patents by top manufacturers for making“tobacco substitute material.” (4) And "smokers" are studied withouta glance at other sources of industrial pollutants at theirworkplaces, homes or elsewhere in their lives.
To call this research incorrect or incomplete is too kind. It's hardto imagine more fraudulent science. And it's hard to imagine howlegitimate law can arise from this.
Researchers study effects of unidentified products that are highly-contaminated with residues of carbamate, organophosphate and chlorinepesticides, dioxin in the smoke from the chlorine pesticides andbleached paper, cancer-causing polonium 210 radiation from certainphosphate fertilizers, any of about 1400 untested and often toxic non-tobacco additives, added burn accelerants, kid-attracting sweets andflavorings etc, carcinogenic filter components, and addiction-enhancing additives. (5) (6) (7) (8)
Researchers then conclude (with no ridicule or outrage from theaudience or from legitimate researchers) that "tobacco kills"...afinding that ignores that some brands at the low-value end may containno tobacco at all, but, instead, "tobacco substitute material" madefrom camouflaged industrial waste cellulose that itself is likelychlorine contaminated. No law requires labeling such cigarettes as"tobacco free," or "made from industrial waste." Even some otherwiseastute and critical progressives accept the deceit that a typicalcigarette is automatically tobacco.
This is the kind of "science" that, in old Florence, might haveconcluded that "drinking" or "wine" caused the death of Medici familyenemies murdered by arsenic-laced wine. No one thought then to banwine and drinking to 'save lives' or to distract from Medici murders.It might have been said that, "everyone knows the dangers ofalcohol." Critics, if any dared, would be labeled as supporters ofdrunkenness and death.
What we now have is that a natural plant, one that is conveniently"sinful" and pagan by having been used for ten thousand years bygodless indigenous people in the Americas, is being scapegoated forcrimes perpetrated by the industries that made typical smokingproducts into virtual toxic waste incinerators that are inescapablydeadly.
Once again, nature is blamed. Diseases and deaths caused by typicalcontaminated smoking products are "acts of God", just as are deathscaused by industry-aggravated climate change, or by rain that causestoxic mine reservoirs to overflow and kill those below. Once againvictims are blamed, burdened with unjustified laws, anduncompensated. Once again, evidence against harmful industrialsubstances, especially pesticides, chlorine and dioxin, is beingstolen from under our noses. And, once again, the perpetrators areoff the hook. Many dare not criticize the quasi-religious corporate"war on tobacco" lest they be labeled as being anti-children, anti-worker, and supporters of dirty air, sinful behavior, disease anddeath.
Typical cigarettes are not simply products of a relative handful of so-called, self-called, "tobacco companies." They are industrialconcoctions that involve the complicity of many pesticide andherbicide manufacturers (some being pharmaceuticals), chlorineproducers, logging, pulp and paper, pesticide-intensive agriculturalconglomerates, phosphate fertilizer mining, pharmaceuticals again inthe additives area, sugar and chocolate, adhesives, spices and soon...plus all their insurers and investors.
One short list, from the U.S. General Accounting Office, of just 35out of 450 or so tobacco pesticides, includes chemicals produced atone time or another by the likes of Dow, DuPont, Rohm and Haas, FMCCorporation, American Cyanamid, Monsanto, Valent, Miles, Ciba Geigy,BASF, Niklor, Rhone-Poulenc, Zeneca, Drexel, Sanex, Great Lakes, andBayer. That's our "Big Tobacco" industry, along with the PhilipMorrises and RJRs who assemble it all. (9) A typical (very non-organic) cigarette is a "Pesticide Peg" or a "Dioxin Dowel."
Those businesses, the cigarette makers, adulterant suppliers, and theofficials in government who presided over and benefited from this massexperimentation and mass poisoning of millions of unwitting people,are working overtime to distract from all that by blaming and puttinglegal burdens on the victims. This is not a grassroots crusade, asmuch as the perpetrators try to paint it as such. It's a corporateAnti Smoking Crusade...or, actually, anti-those-doing-the-smoking-of-god-knows-what campaign. Barely a municipality in the land (if notthe world) is immune from this epidemic fraud. The questionable anti-smoke-ban forces pathetically defend something called "right to smoke"and, like their oppressors in the ban movement, claim and allow thattypical cigarettes are just tobacco. If that isn't a clue to a set-upfraudulent "opposition" then nothing is.
Among the victims of the anti-smoke crusade, and of the broadcigarette cartel, are pregnant mothers, fetuses, and children who aremost vulnerable to innumerable harms from the industrial chemicalcomponents of typical cigarettes and the smoke. (10) Of course,mothers, fetuses, and children are harmed by other exposures topesticides and dioxins, but if a mother smokes or has been exposed to"environmental tobacco smoke"...bingo!...the opening is convenientlyprovided to blame "tobacco", "secondhand smoke" and "smoking".
Who throws the first stones at the mothers? None other than the"tobacco free" and "anti smoking" groups whose own "mothers" arepesticide and chlorine industries. The Tobacco-Free Kids organizationis heavily funded by Johnson & Johnson, a manufacturer of nicotinedelivery devices, which “is eager to replace the tobacco industry inthe distribution of nicotine,” according to Forces.org, “anorganisation in support of human rights and - in particular, but notlimited to – the defence of those who expect from life the freedom tosmoke, eat, drink and, in general, to enjoy personal lifestyle choiceswithout restrictions and state interference.” (11)
Due to media cooperation in this mass deception, it has become agiven, a virtual religious belief, that tobacco and smoking are thesole culprits. No need for actual investigation. Independentscience?...forget it. Might as well have Independent Investigatorslook into 9/11 or Bush wiretapping and torture. Not to happen.
There are no efforts to examine patients for body burdens ofindustrial substances that are in most cigarettes and are known tocause exactly the diseases and pathologies described colloquially, andunscientifically, as "smoking related".
One study, perhaps the most outrageous, done at the University ofPennsylvania, found that smoking mothers caused their own babies'webbed fingers and toes. (12) These are the same deformities that arenotorious effects of Agent Orange spraying in Vietnam. Researchersdid not seem to know about Agent Orange or chlorine or dioxin. Nonews reporter raised that question either. Dioxin, in chlorine-contaminated cigarette smoke or elsewhere, was not even considered asa probable or likely or already-known cause of such problems.Chlorine tobacco pesticides, duly registered by the U.S. government,are not secret, and the chlorine-bleached cigarette paper is nothidden from view. Even people shopping for bathroom tissue know thatchlorine-bleached paper is to be avoided for many health andenvironmental reasons. Not those Penn researchers.
It was as if they studied gunshot victims and failed to look forbullets, guns, or shooters. If the Medici's hire their owninvestigators, that's what you get.
Barely a week goes by that mainstream media do not report studies thatessentially blame mothers for causing yet another health problem forthemselves or their fetuses or their children. Mothers from Hell, weare to presume. Tobacco plants, of course, from Mother Nature, arealso blamed...though the fact that tobacco is a natural plant is nevernoted. The word "tobacco" is considered synonymous with "cigarette",even to the point that we read about "tobacco manufacturers." Someday we may hear about "cigarette growers."
A dearth of health effects on mothers and children is claimed ininnumerable news reports and in “anti-tobacco” literature or websites, to be caused by, or, as they say, "linked to", tobacco andsmoking by mothers while pregnant or afterward:
* Physical aggression in children* Miscarriages* Children of smokers having difficulty becoming pregnant* Cognitive problems* Early menopause by women whose mothers smoked during pregnancy* Learning disabilities* Attention Deficit Disorder* Ear and hearing problems* Hyperactivity and Behavioral Disorders* Babies' webbed fingers and toes* SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome* Respiratory diseases in general* Decreased lung growth* Autism* Low birth weight* Asthma* Bronchitis* Pneumonia* Childhood Cancer* Stillbirth* Premature birth* Cleft lip or palate* Mental retardation* Childhood heart disease* Childhood diabetes* Childhood (and later) glaucoma* Bladder cancer later in life* Kidney problems
Though not specifically linked to children, we also have so-called"smoking related diseases" (or "tobacco-related" diseases) in general,according to US Govt, “anti smoking”, and other "health" sources:
* Acute myeloid leukemia* Cancer of the cervix* Bladder cancer* Kidney cancer* Pancreatic cancer* Stomach cancer* Abdominal aortic aneurysm* Cataracts* Periodontitis* Immune system damage* Alzheimer's disease* Heart attacks and virtually all cardo-vascular diseases* Every imaginable respiratory system cancer* And PMS.
There are no claims yet that mothers' smoking causes measles, whoopingcough, mumps, flu, or the like, but we also are given no informationabout the immune-suppressing characteristic of dioxin that inescapablyaggravates or opens the door to those and all diseases. (13)
Computer searches for any of the diseases in the above list, witheither "pesticides" or "dioxin" added to the search term, will turn uphits in every case. Easy for us...impossible for corporateresearchers.
The diseases and pathologies turn out to be effects of exposures topesticides, chlorine and dioxin...except for a few in the "linked to"category. Even smoke from burning poison ivy, as grim as that is,cannot compare.
The thought that pesticides, chlorine, and dioxin parts of typicalcigarettes are relevant here is not compatible with theCorporatocracy. The same applies to all sorts of other (non smoking-related) exposures to the same industrial substances. Tobacco hasbecome the number one scapegoat for crimes of the chemical industries,far ahead of others such as "faulty genes", "bad diet", "lack ofexercise", "drinking", and "the unknown".
If smoke from the tobacco plant was as deadly as claimed, the U.S.would have dumped typical cigarettes, instead of A-bombs, onJapan...and the U.S.-backed Israeli government would be throwingsmokes over the wall at occupation-resistant Palestinians in Gaza.
Bottom line: There may be no more effective opportunity to expose andindict the chlorine/pesticide industry, and industry-compromisedgovernment officials, than in this "smoking" and tobacco prohibitionarena.
They made it common knowledge about the harms of "smoking." It's ourobligation to explain why it's so harmful.
References (among many)
(1) Smokers May Lose Custody of Children as a Result of New Study andsee Anti-Smoking Advocate Pushing to Make Smoking Around Kids a Formof Child Abuse.
(2) Pesticides on Tobacco: Federal Activities to Assess Risks andMonitor Residues (“That is, tobacco is the nation's ninth highestvalued crop, and in terms of the amount of pesticide applied per acre,tobacco ranks sixth--behind potatoes, tomatoes, citrus, grapes, andapples….”) Also see this Cooperative Extension Burley TobaccoProduction Guide for a sampling of many chemicals that the VirginiaPolytechnic Institute & State University advises be used.
(3) Pesticides on Tobacco: Federal Activities to Assess Risks andMonitor Residues (again); and see Po-210 and Pb-210 Inhalation byCigarette Smoking in Italy for a study on radioactive fertilizers incigarette smoke.
(4) US Patent Office (fake tobacco) http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htmFor starters, search Pat. No. 3,978,866 (Peanut Shells); No.3,976,222(Coffee Bean Hulls); No. 3,100,492 (Corn cobs); 3,638,660 (wood pulp);3,993,082 (Carbon Filled Paper ?); and 3,964,495 (Popped Corn). (Wedon't know what the heck "smoke" we're talking, and legislating,about.)
(5) Dioxins in cigarette smoke.
(6) List of 1,110 additives used in cigarettes...if they containtobacco or not.
(7) Burn accelerants added to cigarette paper.
(8) Addiction enhancement – see Note 6 regarding caffeine, sugar,chocolate, cocoa, etc. Also see Ammonia Added to Cigarettes CanSignificantly Boost Availability of Nicotine, Says New Study.
(9) Use GAO list of 37 tobacco pesticides in Note 2, then simplysearch for manufacturer's name, e.g. Re/ Chlorpyrifos (Dow), AKADursban... http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-dow.htm... .or,Endosulfan...(Bayer) http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1900.html....and so on
(10) Dioxin Update: Children are the Most Vulnerable.
(11) Cancer-Gate (spin doctors hired to sabotage claims thatpesticides are linked to cancer); Exposing a "Grass Roots"Organization: Tobacco-Free Kids; Blowing Smoke:Tobacco-Free Kids,Allies Overshoot Campaign; and Splenda: Is It Safe or Not? for adiscussion of the harms of artificial sweeteners.
(12) Smoking in pregnancy may deform fingers, toes, researchersfind. For other causes of syndactyly and other deformities, seePesticide Appliers, Biocides, and Birth Defects in Rural Minnesota,Agent Orange Illnesses That Effect Veterans; and excerpts from thebook, Veterans and Agent Orange by the US Institute of Medicine,Committee to Review the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposureto Herbicides, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.
(13) Potent Immune System Poison: Dioxin; and see Tobacco Stains: Theglobal footprint of a deadly crop, where it’s reported that DDT anddieldrin are being used overseas, though banned in the US.
Long time activist in areas relating to industrial toxics, mediacontent and control, death penalty, Mumia Abu-Jamal, hemp prohibition,civil rights, insurance influence in public governing, religiousinfluence in public governing, unsafe foods, environmental issues,regressive "fees" to replace legitimate taxation, and the scapegoatingof "sinful" tobacco for the health harms of industrial toxins,carcinogens and so forth.
January 23, 2009
The Ottawa Citizen
Kudos and hats off to Mayor Larry O'Brien. Singlehandedly he hassucceeded in exposing the hypocrisy of city council.
All these years, we have been told about the wonders of caring for theenvironment and the need to reduce greenhouse gases. We were preachedat about all sorts of environmental issues, such as pesticides andinsecticides, by these self-righteous prophets of green. But now wesee that that was all just talk.
The destruction of the transit system, carefully built over 40 years,and the unleashing of pollution from 160,000 extra cars, and there'snot a peep from council.
So it was all just a charade. More power to the mayor for exposingthis solicitude for the environment.
Arnd Bohm, Ottawa
Friday, January 23, 2009
Provincial, retail partnership makes waste disposal easier
By ELAINE DELLA-MATTIA, THE SAULT STAR
A new partnership between Ontario's recyclers and several retailerswill make it easier for consumers to rid of household hazardous waste.
Stewardship Ontario, the organization responsible for the Blue Boxprogram, is partnering with retailers on a new initiative designed tomore than double the amount of hazardous or special waste divertedfrom landfill over the next five years.
The Do What You Can program asks residents to take household hazardouswaste such as old batteries, paints and solvents to its retailpartners for proper disposal or recycling.
RONA and The Home Depot have registered with Stewardship Ontario tocollect unwanted or unused paint from consumers and used non-rechargeable batteries.
RONA will begin the battery collection March 1.
Jiffy Lube will collect used oil filters, empty auto oil bottles andantifreeze and containers.
RONA has collected more than 600,000 pounds of used paint since July2008 in Ontario after it became the first retailer to recover usedpaint as part of the program.
The Home Depot was the first retailer in Canada in 2007 to announce avoluntary phase-out of incandescent bulbs from its store by 2011, oneyear ahead of the Government of Canada's ban.
A year later, it voluntarily stopped selling traditional chemicalpesticides across Canada, focusing on natural alternatives.
Under the Do What You Can program, Stewardship Ontario will take onthe job of picking up the materials from the retailers and ensuringthey are recycled appropriately.
Sault Ste. Marie's waste diversion supervisor Randy Roy said while hebelieves the program is a good idea he's not sure how the new programwill affect the municipal household waste depot that runs from Aprilthrough October.
"The products they're taking back are very limited and we've seenresidents return a number of different household waste items to us allin one trip," he said. "The public is used to coming to our facility."
Stewardship Ontario is launching the first phase of the project toinclude paints solvents, batteries and oil products and will expand inthe future to include other materials including aerosol containers,fluorescent light bulbs, and thermostats, among other things.
The overall goal is to keep household hazardous waste out oflandfills.
It's hoping to divert 32,000 tonnes annually from landfills as aresult of the project.
==============================Warning Industry Propaganda Below==============================
January 19, 2009
Truth About Trade & TechnologyFood Navigator
By Mike Stones
Who likes pesticides? Misunderstood by consumers and misrepresented bypressure groups, pesticides are a soft target for legislators. Thelatest blow to that soft target could have hard consequences for theEuropean food industry and for developing countries.
That blow came earlier this month in the form of the EuropeanParliament’s vote to tighten even further the approval process for newpesticides and restrict the use of existing ones.
Although some proposals, such as higher standards for spray operators,are desirable, Europe does not need yet more pesticide approvallegislation to choke the existing tightly-regulated approvals process,which requires years’ worth of data from laboratory and field trialstogether with ecological information before an approval can beconsidered by the licensing authorities.
Supporters of the new proposals promise improved human health andecological benefits. But the science to support those claims is atbest unclear. The UK Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs(DEFRA), the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) and the NationalFarmers Union (NFU) have all highlighted uncertainties in theproposals and lack of impact assessments.
Meanwhile, the new legislation threatens devastating consequences athome and abroad. Within Europe, the tighter legislation, due to be inforce by 2011, will result in 15 to 20 per cent of pesticidesdisappearing from the market, warns the PSD.
Volatile food prices will become even more volatile. Denying farmersthe full armoury of agrochemicals they need could result inunpredictable pests, diseases and weeds taking an increasing toll oncrop quality and quantity. And that threatens not just higher foodprices for consumers and the food companies, which keep their lardersso well stocked, but the viability of rural economies, which depend onreasonable and predictable commodity prices.
Organic production measures certainly have their place but only itsmost ardent supporters would suggest that Europe could rely on suchmethods. Organic farming is just too unreliable.
Neither can we rely on imports to supply adequate quantities ofreasonably-priced food. Who needs reminding of the weather-inducedfood commodity price swings of the past year?
Rising fuel and raw material costs and competition for land frombiofuels will only further imperil food production. According to theUN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, another 40 million people willgo hungry in a world where one in six already end each day withouthaving had enough to eat.
It is a worry shared by UK DEFRA secretary Hillary Benn. Addressingthe Oxford Farming Conference earlier this month he said: “I wantBritish agriculture to produce as much food as possible. No ifs. Nobuts.” What a contrast with his predecessors who seemed more concernedwith conservation than cereal production.
Tighter pesticide legislation could be even more damaging indeveloping countries. The Campaign for Fighting Diseases (CFD) hasalready warned that the new rules could compromise the fight againstvector-borne diseases such as malaria which already kills one millionpeople a year.
As the European pesticide market contracts, agrochemical companieswill have fewer resources and less incentive to fund the research anddevelopment programmes needed to identify the new weapons in the fightagainst malaria.
So worried is CFD by Europe’s pesticide proposals, a spokespersonsaid: “Public health insecticides represent only one per cent of thepesticide market and manufacturers are very dependent on the sales ofpesticides in the agricultural market.”
There is still time to reconsider the EU’s ill-thought out newpesticide rules. Unless more people learn not to pillory pesticidesbut to praise them - or at least to acknowledge the good they do -there will be a big price to pay. The currency of that price will behigher European food costs and soaring death rates in developingcountries.
Mike Stones has written on food and farming topics for 20 years. Helives in Southern France and co-owns a small family arable farm innorthern England. If you would like to comment on this article pleaseemail michael.stones ‘at’ decisionnews.com.
============================== Blog Gadgets
St. John's Daily Spray Advisory
My Past Articles
More enforcement needed for pesticide spray regulations
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - Final - 10-01-2002 - 413 words
Karen Griffin - Judie Squires says someone needs to patrol the companies that spray residential areas for pesticides because she's observed nine violations of the Environmental Protection Act in her Paradise neighborhood alone…
Spray woes: Province falling down on monitoring pesticides
The Telegram (
Judie Squires - environment to become poisoned? A temporary ban on all residential pesticides has to be put into place, to protect us, our wildlife and our environment as a whole. Judie Squires
Government lax on cosmetic pesticide regulation: advocate
The Telegram (
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of
Woman doesn't expect cosmetic pesticide ban any time soon
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - 08-30-2004 - 712 words
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of Newfoundland and Labrador, isn't optimistic that the province will ban the…
Province lagging behind in pesticide control
The Telegram (
Squires, Judie - it to do is to prohibit the cosmetic use of synthetic pesticides altogether in order to protect our citizens and the environment. Judie Squires writes from Portugal Cove-St. Philip's…
The two sides to pesticide use
The Telegram (
Judie Squires - health of your families. When
Inquiry implicates BTk
The Telegram (
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - of trees. The live spores can be inhaled by humans and animals exposed to BT. Judie Squires, secretary of the Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, says despite claims that…
Delayed pesticide laws 'disappointing'
The Telegram (
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - at the end of this year. These products will only be sold to certified dealers. Judie Squires, secretary of the newly formed Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, isn't…
Above Articles available through Trancontinental Newsnet
Time for provincial lawn pesticide regulation
The Telegram (
pesticides. Please join me in lobbying our province for a pesticide ban Judie Squires Portugal Cove...