Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 15th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Tobacco smoke ‘is radioactive’



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 July 2008
ANTI-SMOKING campaigners have hit out at the amount of radioactive polonium-210 contained in cigarettes.
ASH Scotland was responding to a study by the American Journal of Public Health of internal tobacco industry documents.

It found that tobacco manufacturers knew that polonium-210 was part of tobacco smoke more than 40 years ago and that they have since attempted, but failed, to remove it from their products.

Sheila Duffy, chief executive of ASH Scotland, said: “Polonium-210 is one of many substances in tobacco smoke known to cause cancer.”





The full article contains 94 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 July 2008 9:45 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/07/2008 12:35:32
OH FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!

Will these nazis EVER shut up and go away? EVERYTHING is radioactive to some extent. They would get a bigger dose of radiation by staying the weekend in Aberdeen than by spending every night in a smoky bar for the next year.

Duffy is a complete and utter idiot who would use every lie and exaggeration under the sun to demonise people who smoke. Ignore her.
2

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/07/2008 12:37:55
I bet she doesn't even know what Polonium-210 is, let alone the safe dosage, the kind of radiation it emits and the quantity found in tobacco smoke (which is INSIGNIFICANT).
3

DeniseX,

18/07/2008 12:55:36
Should we ban Xrays? They are very radio active.
4

DeniseX,

18/07/2008 13:08:52
Did Alexander Litvinenko have a cigarette with his cup of tea?
5

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/07/2008 13:34:29
Maybe Marie Curie smoked too much and that is what brought on the radiation sickness which killed her and not the radium?

Incidentally, it was Marie Curie who discovered Polonium, but I'm sure that it wasn't through smoking too many cigarettes.
6

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/07/2008 13:35:51
People like Duffy should be banned from ever being allowed anywhere near an education system. They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In her case the little knowledge she does have definately gets used to dangerous effect.
7

harleyrider1978,

tenn 18/07/2008 13:54:59
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:


http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com


All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN.
US Supreme court decision 1992 NEVER OVERTURNED...

A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.
8

harleyrider1978,

18/07/2008 13:55:50
it says one of your journalists has tried to contact me for further information.please have them send an email.........
9

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

18/07/2008 14:06:43
PetrolHead reckons: "They would get a bigger dose of radiation by staying the weekend in Aberdeen"

Kenny MacAskill is secretly planning to ban Aberdeen.
10

DeniseX,

18/07/2008 14:22:29
Radioactive phosphate fertiliser is responsible for polonium in much of our food and flouride is responsible for polonium in our drinking water. Ban food and water.
11

Colin Gee,

Banff 18/07/2008 15:50:00
Ms Duffy really ought to check out the science first, and then comment.

Polonium 210 (P-210) is a radon daughter. It has a half-life of around 120 days. Since tobacco is stored for up to three years before it hits the shelves, the P-210 is completely degraded by the time consumers use the product. Not so for other P-210 "carriers".

Will we hear Ms Duffy announce that all broad leafed vegetables contain active P-210? Will we need to ban these fresh vegetables that parents are making their kids eat with its' dose of P-210?

I thought not.
12

Bill Crombie,

18/07/2008 17:31:52
Ms McDuff continues on her career journey with every announcement - every spiralling downwards. ASH Scotand is a front for a fanatical anti-smoking cult, hell-bent on the demonisation tobacco and smokers.

Ms McDuff and co will resort to any lies, spin, junk science and sheer propaganda to promote their hatred. I demand that this woman and organisation is bought to account and closed down immediately. Saving the taxpayers of Scotland a fortune and ending this campaign against smokers who enjoy tobacco products. Foxtrot oscar and good riddance to the lot of them.
13

mandyv,

Banitland 18/07/2008 20:22:04
Quick shut your computors down, get those mobiles banned, then we can all have a quiet life away - oops no, it is ok, there IS a safe level, it says so in the article below".

"Some people who work in offices worry about their computers and computer screens (VDUs) increasing their risk of a brain tumour. VDUs do give out electromagnetic radiation, which can be harmful above certain levels. But the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) say that the levels of radiation given out by VDUs are well below the safe levels set out in international recommendations. The HSE are responsible for the regulation of health and safety risks arising from work activity in Britain.

The only danger we are in in danger of is being put in constant fear by the likes of these people.

See where the smoke-haters really want to go, nothing to do with health, control,pots of money ect. Video in link, ask yourself, are these the words of sane men? or dictators?

"Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf.PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/Page/6100.html
Weyco and Banzhaf

freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike please join our forums and consider becoming a member.

14

Spanners,

18/07/2008 23:30:26
Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland, speaks big words like "substances.. known to cause cancer” but these carry as much weight as rice paper.
The risk of smoking is approx 4 in 10,000 of a smoking related disease, but a non-smoker also has a 1 in 10,000 lifetime risk of the same diseases. Yes both smokers and non-smokers have a risk considerably less than 1% and your likelihood of getting such diseases can be caused by a whole host of other factors including your family tree (genetics), diet, stress levels and where you live (national location) many even bigger factors than smoking itself.
Ms. Duffy is a leightweight with a megaphone. A windbag who shouldn't be given airtime for her scaremongering but a mental health examination for pathalogical exaggeration.
15

banhater,

19/07/2008 00:28:57
What will it take for the majority to treat these comical stories with the disdain they deserve?

Perhaps when the media tell them to?

16

Thomas Laprade,

Thunder Bay, Ont. 19/07/2008 03:33:06
I tested my smokes with a gieger counter and nothing happened.

Now what??
17

DeniseX,

19/07/2008 10:24:10
Welsh Culture Minister Rhodri Glyn Thomas has resigned after claims he walked in to a pub holding a lit cigar. It seems that he wasn't even smoking the cigar.
Any MP who repeats the lies or exaggerations of ASH should be forced to resign.
18

DaveA,

Forfarshire 19/07/2008 12:05:31
This is desperate stuff from ASH and please bear in mind that your taxes pay for her to say these things.

Apparently Polonium can also be found in aerosols too, so Ms Duffy, put that can of furniture polish down, along with the air freshener and deodorant. Methinks you are poisoning the world. BTW if you were in a room 20 feet x 20' x 9' pasive smoking, to be exposed to danger levels of benzene a carcinogen found in 3% of Ms Duffy's petrol she puts in her car, you would have to be exposed to 14,700 smokers. Toluene which I believe is radio active too, the number is 1,000,000.

"Measurements from three smokers and two non-smokers show that 210Pb from natural aerosols also is concentrated at bronchial bifurcations, but little 210Pb is associated with this soluble lead. This fact makes estimates of residence time in bronchial epithelium of smokers (3-5 months in these preliminary data) likely to be low."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1236240?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
19

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia 20/07/2008 00:35:22
A couple of years ago a Russian spy was killed with several grams of Polonium 210 and the Antismokers immediately jumped all over it saying how nonsmokers were being "chronically poisoned" with it all the time by smokers.

Well, I sat down and did a few calculations. The result was outright comical and I'll adapt a bit of here:

====

Let's say they find that the "several millicuries" that killed the Russian were actually just 3 millicuries. A 30 cig per day smoker gets 1 picocurie per day.

A typical nonsmoker would get roughly 1/1,000 of that per day working in a decently ventilated bar/restaurant/casino, or one "femtocurie" per day.

A millicurie is 1,000 microcuries, or 1,000,000 nanocuries, or 1,000,000,000 picocuries, or 1,000,000,000,000 femtocuries.

You would need to work at a casino for three trillion days in order to absorb the dose that killed the Russian.

Since Christ was born there have been (2,000 x 52) weeks. If you worked at a casino for five days a week you'd have absorbed (2,000 x 52 x 5) femtocuries... or just 520,000... You'd have to have worked there for a period of... hmm... six million periods of the Christian Era to absorb the killing dose. With the amount of sinning you could do in Vegas or AC in six million Christian Eras I don't think you'd stand much chance of getting through the pearly gates.

Since the start of the universe (say about 10 billion years ago) there have been (10billion x 52 x 5) workdays. That's two trillion, 600 billion workdays. Soooo... if you'd been working in a casino since the Big Bang you'd STILL have another 400 billion workdays to go!

Of course all the above assumes that Polonium 210 has a half life of billions of years and that you never take a bathroom break in all that time (Ouch... Constipation here I come!) so it accumulates. Since the half life of P-210 is actually only 138 days, and since it's unlikely you'd avoid the bathroom for three trillion years I'm afraid there's simply no way f
20

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia 20/07/2008 00:47:20
{continued}

Sooo.... If Sheila Duffy or any of the other ASH extremist types are looking to cash it in by exposing themselves to secondary smoke, I'd have to advise them that they'd have better luck if they quit their antismoking jobs and joined the KGB instead.

Hey, at least they'd be amongst kindred spirits!

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
21

Peter QR Davies,

Stockport 23/07/2008 19:51:19
Well if this is the case then I will have to stop giving blood to the NHS.
22

Spanners,

24/07/2008 00:34:23
Forget about giving blood to the NHS. Even visiting an NHS hospital you've the same 1 in 300 chance of contracting an illness or disease as a patient.

Namely while passive smoking carries a 12.5 in 100,000 risk of cancer after a lifetimes exposure to 2nd hand smoke in a matter of days an NHS hospital can damage your health.

But the NHS don't have "NHS HOSPITAL PATIENTS DIE YOUNGER" plastered over their fronts and their TV advert campaigns propogandising smoking don't (but definately should) switch to "NHS hospitals are a national health hazard" even though the science behind NHS dangers are considerably higher risk and more certain.

But I've a feeling Shiela McDuffer wouldn't warrant such public health messages despite the scientific evidence because grinding the chips on her shoulders blinds the poor woman to real facts!
23

DeniseX,

24/07/2008 07:53:06
Pubs are far more 'dangerous' since the smoking ban. Most pubs have got rid of their ventilators and all the other toxins and carcinogens are lingering in these pubs.
24

David from New Mills,

Ever fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/07/2008 17:17:17
If polonium-210 is as harmless as alleged, why did the tobacco companies try to eliminate it from their products, and without success? Perhaps they could have spent their efforts to better advantage in eliminating the nicotine, or would that have deprived them of their captive market?
25

Spanners,

29/07/2008 04:35:14
David, the same could be said for coffee, tea, alcahol and Red Bull (ane they're all as 'dangerous' as smoking - namely statistically sod all). What's the point of something without 'a kick' or a buzz (sports adrenalin).

I've played rugby for 25yrs. It's just fun but considerably more dangerous than smoking. Wanna ban that too mate?

As for nicotine, the anti-smoking pharma Co's are selling chewing gum with nicotine readily available to children in sweet shops.

Regards Polonium 210 who gives a fig. I've been smoking 37yrs and haven't keeled over. Madame Jeanne Claument, the ldest person that's ever lived (121) smoked strong French cigarettes and din't keel over in a P-210 haze! Mike Allingham Britains oldest man (112) smokes cigarettes all his life. Find me a non-smoking non-P-210 ingesting vedgetarian that's outlived those two why don't you??

And their not exceptional. I can give you a long list of smokers that outlive your non-smoking church going bores including the fact pipe smokers outlive non-smokers by 2 to 3 years on average. So my suggestion is take up smoking, as SMOKERS LIVE LONGEST.

26

DeniseX,

29/07/2008 11:38:39
Pollution around the Olympic stadium in Beijing could be five times worse than levels deemed safe by the World Health Organisation.
If the Scottish and English Governments are so concerned about everybody's health, why are they allowing our athletes to compete in Beijing?
27

David from New Mills,

Smog and fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/08/2008 20:48:17
#25, Spanners is free to be in denial, and cite rare examples of smoking centenarians as undisputed proof of the beneficial effects of tobacco and its guarantee of longevity, but I'm more than happy to avoid both the habit and smokers' fumes.
Neither he nor any one else has answered my original question posed in #24.
28

David from New Mills,

Smog and fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/08/2008 20:54:25
#26, Deni.
A fair question, as I find it bad enough having to sprint through the fug of smokers standing on pavements outside pub doorways with a much lower temperature than that prevailing in Beijing.
29

Spanners,

03/08/2008 17:14:37
David, the answer to your question in Post #24 is "answer it yourself". Nobody out here in Planet Reality asked it and nobody can be bothered to. ASH Scotland are telling big porky pies, nabbed again in a long line of deceipt and misleading propaganda to peddle their anti-democratic interfering. A bigger bunch of dishonest creeps you couldn't wish never to meet. You've also failed to mention that and countered that SMOKERS LIVE LONGEST. We hod records all across the planet for long life, including pipe smokers averaging 3 years longer than non-smoking church goers that prey for long life every Sunday. You and most 'health' bodies cannot explain away this huge hole your case because science (reality) does not run parallel with your anti-smoking agenda. The truth hurts doesn't it?
30

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/08/2008 22:10:45
#29,Spanners.
Spanners' poor attempt at an answer is, in effect, no answer at all. The fact that no one else in the whole of "Planet Reality" has pondered the question in no way renders it invalid. The truth is probably that the tobacco companies chose to suppress the details of the ingredients in their product, as is their wont.
I'm discounting S.'s long vitriolic outburst against ASH, but wonder when I claimed that "SMOKERS LIVE LONGEST"?
I do not "prey" or even pray for long life every Sunday, am no "'health' body", and have no anti-smoking agenda, just contentment with the present restrictive legislation, so there is no cause for hurt on my part, be it real or imaginary.
31

DeniseX,

04/08/2008 08:21:20
#28. The mind boggles, Davina 'sprinting'. She loves sport as much she loves cigarette smoke. I'd have thought she would be the first in line for the 'exercise pill'.
32

David from New Mills,

,Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/08/2008 11:14:19
#31,DeniseX.
I'm sure we could all summon up reserves of energy if crossing a field and being spotted by an aggressive bull.
Perhaps Den could try out the sanity pill.
33

Spanners,

05/08/2008 10:38:43
David, let me repeat nobody is interested in answering your question about P210 because it's as irrelevant to smoking as ASH UK are to society. You write I'm "in denial" about smokings dangers to health but you don't seem to take aboard I'm fully aware of the actual lifetime risks (massively lower than the health risks of entering an NHS hospital) and can point out perfectly reasonably that smokers live longer than non-smokers. You have faild to reply to this FACT, failed to address ASH Scotland are lying in this article and failed to address this legislation is anti-democratic and based on a fraud about being a danger to public health. Who's in denial David?
34

DeniseX,

06/08/2008 19:04:32
#32. Same old bull.
35

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 06/08/2008 19:30:26
#34, DeniseX.
Or even same old cow? They can be treacherous too, if you cross their path.
36

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 06/08/2008 20:06:13
#33, Spanners.
Perhaps Spanners in place of his mindless “nobody is interested in“ answering your question about P210, should have substituted the words “nobody is able or willing to”. Hence the question in my #24 still stands.
I am quite happy that he makes his own risk assessment about tobacco, as I have made mine.
The only statement that ASH Scotland are reported to have made in the article is that “Polonium-210 is one of many substances in tobacco smoke known to cause cancer.” Would Spanners disagree with that statement. Having seen images of Alexander Litvinenko in terminal decline, I certainly wouldn't choose to ingest the substance.
He claimed at #29 that “You've also .....countered that SMOKERS LIVE LONGEST. I've made no such assertion. As he now seems to be making that claim, could he specify whether that is all, most, or merely some smokers? Until he plumps for one with some corroborating evidence, I really cannot respond to his supposition.
Spanners has also glibly glossed over the fact that the Health Act, 2006 was passed by a majority in Parliament on the basis of a free of party vote, and that the Scottish legislation was approved by members of its democratically chosen Executive.
So, who's supposed to be in denial then?
37

Spanners,

08/08/2008 06:32:50
David,

You're NOT in denial then? Sheila Duffy said of ASH Scotland, said: “Polonium-210 is one of many substances in tobacco smoke known to cause cancer.” Do either you or Ms. Duffer know what levels of P210 are dangerous?

You have your answers in posts above clearly laid out in facts and figures. It is not dangerous. The levels are too miniscule and insignificant. Like ASH Scotland and your view on the matter.

For a 2nd time answer my question. Is ASH Scotland trying to mislead and scare or not?

Next claim by you is our democracy is working just fine. Unfortunately Labour had a manifesto which had some pledges in it on smoking and the EEC. They renaged on both, showing complete contempt and deceipt in both cases, for the voters that voted them in on a ticket (mandate) Labour ripped up.

If that's your idea of democracy (deceipt and contempt) then it's only because it suits your extremist minority view on this issue.

Yes I have made my own risk assesment of tobacco. It's a lifetime risk of below 1% (1 in 100) that I'll contract a serious smoking related disease that'll kill me prematurely. It's about the same as living on radioactive granite rock in the Channel Islands and drinking 4 cups a coffee a day for life.

You have a 1 in 6 billion chance as a non-smoker of living passed Madame Jeanne Clauments 121 who smoked strong French cigarettes all her life.

You have a 1 in 200 million chance of living past Henry Allingham, Britains oldest man (112) who smoked all his life.

And I have a 1% less chance than you of the above. It's my life, my risk. Now answer me when precisely did I ask you or ASH or the government to micro-manage my life and when was I asked if I wanted my life extended in a trade for being banned for life from having a ciggy in a Pub?

38

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/08/2008 21:09:14
#37, Spanners.
I really seem to have rattled Spanner's cage on this one, but never mind.
To reply to his long diatribe, I have no idea to what degree Polonium 210 is dangerous, and cannot speak for ASH or Sheila Duffy, but would simply repeat my question at #24, namely “If polonium-210 is as harmless as alleged, why did the tobacco companies try to eliminate it from their products?” Not a difficult question to answer, surely?
And again, in my #36 ASH reportedly stated “Polonium-210 is one of many substances in tobacco smoke known to cause cancer.” Would Spanners disagree with that statement?
Spanners claimed the levels of Polonium 210 in are cigarettes are minuscule, and not hazardous, so again why would the tobacco companies try to remove these “minuscule, non-hazardous” amounts?
I can't trace S's first posing of his question about Ash, but I detect neither “deceipt” nor deception in their straightforward quotation as cited in the article.
I don't feel that Labour was elected by most of the electorate on the basis of statements about plans for smoking restrictions contained in their Manifesto, which very few voters would be familiar with, assuming they'd even read it.
I don't find my views to be of the “ extremist minority”. That description would apply rather to a very small percentage of hardened smokers, smokers themselves being very much in the minority.
Spanners claimed at #25, that “smokers live longest”. Now the story seems to be that they live 99% as long as smokers? Again, based on what firm data?
Again, I've no problem with S. making his personal risk assessment, just as I choose to make mine.
Late in 2006, HMG invited the electorate to make comments about the proposed Health Bill, and in particular its provisions on smoking in public places. I responded, contacted my MP, and even Tony Blair. Did Spanners do any of these. If not, tough cookies, as they say.
If Spanners is that bothered about having his puff in a pub, he's still got lots of pla
39

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/08/2008 21:16:23
#38.
Sorry, this got truncated.
Should continue ".....places he can do it in."
40

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 09/08/2008 12:38:51
#38.
Correction. The penultimate para. should have, of course, begun "Late in 2005....."
41

DeniseX,

09/08/2008 17:56:27
Polonium-210 exists naturally; there are tiny amounts in our bodies and small quantities in the soil and air.
If Davina is that worried about Polonium 210, she should stop breathing.
42

David from New Mills,

Ever so pleasantly fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 09/08/2008 18:35:53
#41,DeniseX.
Perhaps Den in this mood of helpfulness would care to provide an answer to my question at #24, namely:- "If polonium-210 is as harmless as alleged, why did the tobacco companies try to eliminate it from their products?" (and without success).
In the meantime. I sall carry on breathing for a while longer, and continue to avoid smokers' effluence.
How's the smog in Beijing doing?
43

DeniseX,

09/08/2008 19:03:40
#42. Why should tobacco companies eliminate polonium 210, when it is already in our bodies and in the air?
If you had watched the cycling road race you would have heard that the smog in Beijing is still well above safety levels. You probably don't watch the Olympics, because you are a spoil sport.
All the time you are breathing, you are making a fugging fool of yourself.
44

Spanners,

09/08/2008 20:08:48
David,

You've all the 'assets' of a minority like ASH. No respect for others, the ability to make a mountain out of a grain of P-210 and the pig-headedness to hold views despite clear scientific facts being placed in front of your nose.

You ask why did Tobacco try to remove P-210? Did one of the Health Depts with jack boots on ask them too? Seriously mate, nobody here gives too hoots because as the science in above posts demonstrate (stop ignoring it blinker-boy) it is irrelevant. You can faff about a non-issue all you like - go ask them yourself, nobody else is bothered.

Your answers on ASH's dishonest statements is also equally dishonest. Their statement is designed to deliberately mislead and is a misrepresentation of the science (a character trait of these extremists).

Does P-210 cause cancer? I doubt it. Because cigarette smoke does not cause cancer. Ask a Doctor or a Scientist what causes cancer. He doesn't know. All he knows for (relatively) certain is that your family history increases risk, what you eat increases risk, smoking increases risk, where you live increases risk.

All anyone can say with any certainty is if you're numbers up, if you smoke you've a 40 in 100,000 chance of contracting it against a non-smokers 10 in 100,000 chance. If we knew what caused cancer we could solve it. All we know currently is that the risks of certain things increase risk of it getting you by a microscopic margin. Not smoking doesn't change your odds by any more than a 1% lifetime chance.

Get an electron microsocope out to count your blessings and a Telescope out to find where ASH Scotland lost their integrity!
45

David from New Mills,

Ever so pleasantly fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 09/08/2008 21:11:42
#43,DeniseX.
"tobacco manufacturers knew that polonium-210 was part of tobacco smoke more than 40 years ago and that they have since attempted, but failed, to remove it from their products." So why indeed feel the need to try?
While I don't intend to watch the Olympics, as I have no sporting inclination, I have no reason to decry or spoil the enjoyment of those who choose to do so.
I think Den is confused beteen fugging, presumably smoke belching, and fug free, perhaps from an inability to see clearly through the murk.
Never mind!
46

DeniseX,

10/08/2008 08:15:36
Davina
Keep breathing in that lovely Polonium 210. The longer you keep breathing, the more of a fugging idiot you make of yourself.
47

David from New Mills,

Ever so pleasantly fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 10/08/2008 12:17:05
#46,DeniseX.
Den can be sure I'll continue to enjoy my fug free atmosphere. Noteworthy that Den prefers attempted insults to reasoned replies to fair questions. Such is the sign of a poor loser. May the local weather be fairer then Den's nature.
48

DeniseX,

10/08/2008 15:50:13
A very poor loser. Davina starts the name calling and doesn't like it when somebody does it to her.
49

David from New Mills,

Ever so pleasantly fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 10/08/2008 22:51:07
#48,DeniseX.
Is Den able to supply any concrete examples of my imagined name calling, outwith his fertile imagination?
50

Spanners,

10/08/2008 23:18:04
David from New Mills,

I'm quite happy to accept some digs about ciggies and a robust ding-dong. However what gets up my nose is dishonest behaviour which ASH Scotland has once again demonstrated - a deliberate attempt to mislead, scare, hyperbolic propoganda based on any scrap of garbage science this trash can peddle together.

And whilst your Olympic quip is just fine and dandy your elusiveness and refusal to answer a direct question - is ASH in hyperbole mode and deliberately trying to misrepresent the science - is starting to grate.

Are ASH being misleading and attempting to misrepresent the science or not?

Ps. Smoker Live Longest. Fact. Peace & Love.

51

David from New Mills,

Still ever so pleasantly fug free Pleasantville, U 11/08/2008 00:55:52
#50, Spanners.
So what were the "digs about ciggies" or the "Olympic quip"?
To preserve Spanner's teeth, I do not find ASH's statement that “Polonium-210 is one of many substances in tobacco smoke known to cause cancer.” to be an example of either "deceipt" or deception or an attempt to deliberately "misrepresent the science". In what way does Spanners think otherwise?
"Ps. Smoker Live Longest. Fact." Is that an exhortation, a hope, or a statement?
52

DeniseX,

11/08/2008 18:32:39
#49 You have only to read what you have written. Plus Den, Deni sex, Denis etc. The longer you carry on breathing in Polonium 210, the more you make a fugging idiot of yourself.
53

David from New Mills,

Still ever so pleasantly fug free Pleasantville. 11/08/2008 19:01:52
#52, DeniseX.
I usually do proof read before I post, but can find no examples of my alleged name calling therein.
In a previous post, I stated that I found the nomenclature of DeniseX more than a little ambiguous, and requested clarification. If Den can finally provide this, I'll be pleased to use the correct appellation in future.
Until then, I'm left in confusion. And the alleged name calling, as I don't recall ever describing Den as an idiot, fugging or otherwise?
54

Spanners,

20/08/2008 14:52:16
David of New Mills,

Stop breathing mate - you're taking in P210 in identical amounts to passive smoke. You believe ASH Scotlands statement the P210 in passive smoke is cancer causing and plainly ignored clear evidence above it isn't so here's my press release based on the same weasel words you authorise for use by ASH;

"A study by David of New Mills today shows breathing is carcenogenic. ASH Scotland has shown support for the study by Dave and their calls for people to stop breathing as it is a danger to public health. Sheila Duffy, chief executive of ASH Scotland, said: “Breathing is one of many human activities known to cause cancer.”

Spanners, a Doctor of Propaganda Exposure today called for Dave and Sheila Duffy to get a mental health check-up. Spanner said "The ability to blow up trivia to hysterical proportions despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary deems Dave and Sheila in urgent need of examination. Hyperbolic Syndrome is a nasty affliction leading to public embarrassment due to living in a world of unreality".
55

David from New Mills,

Still ever so pleasantly fug free Pleasantville. 21/08/2008 12:10:44
#54, Spanners.
Spanners was apparently a litle bored yesterday, so felt the need to compose this piece of trivia.
Pity he didn't take the trouble to look up "carcinogenic" for insertion in his little treatise.
#51.
I would repeat "So what were the "digs about ciggies" or the "Olympic quip"?"
56

Spanners,

28/08/2008 19:45:59
Pity you don't take the time to check out the facts from the the fiction. You've been squirming on the hook for all your posts on this thread - a very good track record which just demonstrates my "trivia" about spin sums up your CV
57

David from New Mills,

Still ever so pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 28/08/2008 20:23:36
#56,Spanners.
Spanners is very keen to talk about my "squirming on the hook", but still declines to answer any of my direct questions at #55. What spin, what CV?
Learned to spell "carcinogenic" yet?
Shall we have to wait a week or more again for a considered response?
58

Spanners,

05/09/2008 01:30:38
David New Mills,

Refer to your post No.28: "..I find it bad enough having to sprint through the fug of smokers standing on pavements outside pub doorways with a much lower temperature than that prevailing in Beijing."

Your CV of spin and squirming on the hook I recommend you look at the rest of your posts. You display an amazing ability to ignore other people posts on the triviality of P210 yet bang on with your fog horn about how this trivial element is sooooo important to be answered!

Nobody else can be bothered apart from you and the dishonest and deluded ASH Scotland.

Similarly you say in your post how "bad" it is for you to bounce through a door into the smoke of smokers kicked outside by this abusive, extremist anti-democratic Govt. How considerate and obnoxious of you to consider this matter so deeply!

In your postings you say you're not 'in denial'. Yet your post No.30 says you do not have an "..anti-smoking agenda, just contentment with the present restrictive legislation, so there is no cause for hurt on my part, be it real or imaginary."

So no matter what the science, no matter if this abusive, destructive legislation with 2,000 pubs and 40,0000 staff jobs lost, you're still "content". And you're not in-denial and haven't an anti-smoking agenda right??

You're a clown mate.

59

David from New Mills,

Still ever so pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 13/09/2008 11:48:21
#58, Spanners.
Just to enlighten Coco, my #28, was an allusion to Deni's #26, namely it's bad enough having to run through the blanket of smoke near pub doorways without having to do so in much hotter Beijing.
I've noted the postings of all the so-called experts alleging how innocuous polonium-210 is supposed to be, but still don't understand why the tobacco companies would then want to try to remove it from their product, or do they just have a serious image problem?
Not clear how Coco has me "bouncing" through doorways. Was he a fan of the Magic Roundabout in his childhood or later?
The only thing that drives smokers outside is their nicotine addiction. That deep enough logic?
Coco has quoted me correctly from #30, so where does he feel the denial arises? No anti-smoking agenda old bean, just a pro-restrictionist one, so that I'm not adversely affected by smokers' addiction and it's effluence.
Non-smokers rule o.k.
Ringmaster.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.