|
' Airline
travellers should not be worried about high-altitude exposure to radiation from space and
the sun, U.S. experts said on Monday. … Government and airline scientists said
existing evidence does not point to cosmic radiation as a major health issue. "I
don't think it poses such a risk that people should be concerned abut flying," said
Wallace Friedberg, head of radiobiology research at the Federal Aviation Administration's
Civil Aeromedical Institute. '
What does this have to do with smoking? Very
much indeed.
The veterans of the fight against the antitobacco mafia will remember that in 1989 an
immense study was commissioned by the US Department of Transports on passive smoke and
cosmic radiations on aircrafts. The study, "AIRLINER CABIN ENVIRONMENT:
CONTAMINANT MEASUREMENTS, HEALTH RISKS, AND MITIGATION OPTIONS" (DOT-P-15-89-5),
unquestionnably demonstrated that:
A passenger sitting in the area of the non
smoking section bordering with the smoking section should fly 48,440
hours (5.5 years) to inhale the equivalent of one
cigarette.
Statistically, passengers who fly 480 hours
for 30 straight years risk from 0.3 to 0.8
"premature" deaths from lung cancer every 100,000 people.
Still statistically, the same passengers
who still fly 480 hours but for just 20 years, risk from 45 to 513
"premature" deaths from lung cancer every 100,000 people.
The above means that cosmic radiations are
from 150 to 641
times more dangerous than passive smoke, notwithstanding 10 less
years of exposure.
But if we have just been told that cosmic radiations DO NOT REPRESENT A RISK
FOR HEALTH, how can passive smoke, up to
641 times less dangerous, be considered a danger to health, to the
point of not just prohibiting it, but even justify colossal class action suits from flight
attendants and private individuals?
That is, of course, a rhetorical question. We all know that the dangers of passive smoke
are a fraud to justify the prohibition of smoking, and the flow of immense public fortunes
in the pocket of an industry of public cons.
The smoking prohibition has also allowed
airlines to substantially reduce air filtration (thus to considerably increase profits),
because smokeless air "smells" cleaner, although in the so-called "clean
air" airplanes there is now considerable increase of pneumonic diseases
(including airborne tuberculosis), not to mention the very much "kept-quiet"
explosion of air rage, due to the deprivation of smoking, combined with the
tightening of other "safety" regulations further restricting behaviour, and
added to the decay of service and the prohibition of alcohol sales in certain airlines.
As it was the case for the WHO's Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe, in fact, this study was quickly
buried and "forgotten" to proceed with the prohibition agenda by those who made
it to public health instead of public prisons. No other study of this type was repeated
for smoking in airplanes, since this type of study (instrumental instead of
statistical) cannot be manipulated and "spinned" to show the desired
misinformation on smoking.
But FORCES Netherlands
took the time and the great effort to reproduce this huge study on hypertext, and we are
glad to present it, once again, for the new readers of FORCES.
Remember:
if you smoke, you do not hurt anyone
|
