Sunday 27 June 2010

Junk scientists wanted

When it comes to tobacco control, it often seems that the policy is decided first and the science is produced as an afterthought. Since the lion's shares of the anti-smoking policies we see today were planned as far back as the 1970s, it is a remarkable coincidence that scientific evidence for each of them appeared at regular and timely intervals in the intervening years. This is something that The Economist gently hinted at in a recent review of a book called Merchants of Doubt:

In most of these campaigns the dissenters have argued that the American scientific establishment is tainted with an anti-corporate liberalism and is trying to impose socialism by the back door. One does not have to agree with this view, or to think that both sides are equally culpable, to feel that the ways in which science is used to generate assent for environmental action may sometimes be as interesting as the ways in which it is mobilised for dissent.

Though the authors note as a curiosity that campaigns against secondary smoke predated evidence that it did any harm, they show no desire to explore this seemingly reversed causality.
Secondhand smoke is old news in California these days, of course. These days, if you're an anti-smoking campaigner, your policy objectives are to ban smoking in the home and in the street. These 'next logical steps' have long since been settled on by the people who really matter—ie. you and your fellow 'health professionals'. All you need is a scientific fig-leaf to help you get around the quaint objections of personal liberty and individual sovereignty, which some politicians still consider important and which even you, as a citizen of a liberal democracy, feel compelled to pay lip-service to.

Of course, there isn't any serious scientific evidence that secondhand smoke from outdoors—or from next door—has the slightest effect on the health of others. Nor will there ever be. It would defy everything we know about toxicology, chemistry and biology, not to mention common sense. It's an idea of profound lunacy.

The best of a bad bunch of pseudo-scientific arguments for outdoor smoking bans are the risible notion of people being harmed by trace levels of toxins clinging to clothes and carpets ('thirdhand smoke') and the equally risible idea of cigarette butts leaching trace levels of toxins into the ground, thereby 

It's not very promising, I'll grant you, but it's all there is and the lack of scientific evidence is holding things up. And so, if you're California's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, you wave some money in the air—the traditional mating call of the quackademic—and see who responds. Hence:

TRDRP Call for Applications

Request for Proposals for TRDRP Initiative on Thirdhand Smoke and Cigarette Butts

The Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP) announces a Request for Proposals (RFP) to undertake studies on Thirdhand Smoke and Cigarette Butt Waste, under a new initiative.

And, if you are sitting down...

Approximately $3.75 million is expected to be available for this RFP.

That should get a response from the scientific community in these troubled economic times, wouldn't you say?

The aim of this project is, according to the TRDRP... conduct research on (1) the impact of thirdhand tobacco smoke exposure from indoor surfaces and air quality on public health, and (2) the effects of water and soil contamination by cigarette butts on organisms and humans.

This talk of 'conducting research' makes it sound as if some sort of impartial investigation into science is in the offing here. Tellingly, however, in the 15 page document which gives details about the project, the word 'science' isn't used once. The word 'policy', on the other hand, is used 14 times. That's a pretty good guide to the rest of the document.

They do, however, admit that there is no existing evidence to support either proposition.

The health effects of thirdhand smoke are poorly understood.

Virtually nothing is known about the impact of cigarette butts on contamination of air, water and soil.

Very true. That being the case, you wouldn't want to make any assumption that thirdhand smoke is dangerous, would you?

1.1 Thirdhand Smoke Exposure and Health Effects

The indoor surfaces and air quality component of this initiative is intended to help create and sustain a new research niche and infrastructure in California that is expected to shed light on several concrete aspects of the public health dangers of thirdhand smoke

And you wouldn't want to lead the researcher towards a particular conclusion or imply that you're looking for any particular outcome. Would you?

The findings from this research may have broad implications in policy enactment in California to prevent human exposure to thirdhand smoke in homes, hotels, apartment buildings, personal vehicles, gaming casinos, and hookah bars. 

It is anticipated that the research outcomes will contribute to dramatically reducing the exposure of developing and newborn infants, young children, adolescent youth, and adults to potential disease-causing toxicants produced from thirdhand smoke.

And you certainly wouldn't want to suggest that the whole project is specifically designed to meet predetermined political objectives. After all, how could you—the research hasn't even begun yet. Right?

Policy Implications

How will the scientific evidence from exposure to thirdhand smoke and cigarette butt pollution emanating from the proposed collaborative studies inform the policy makers to frame new policy in California to mitigate the public health effects?

How will these studies impact indoor air quality in buildings and vehicles to protect vulnerable populations from exposure risks? Strengths of proposed strategy for investigative plans to interface with policy makers and community advocates will be evaluated by reviewers.

... Funded investigators may be called upon to provide testimony to California legislators and to collaborate with policy researchers to help enact and enforce policies in California to mitigate the health effects of exposure to thirdhand smoke and cigarette butt pollution of water and soil in California.

It sounds a pretty sweet deal—the TRDRP provides the conclusion and the researcher fills in the blanks. All we need is someone prepared to prostitute their scientific integrity for a huge pile of cash. And let's look at all that lovely money again...

The TRDRP has allocated up to $3.75 million over three years for this RFP. It is anticipated that TRDRP may fund up to two (2) Grants of up to $425,000 each, or may fund one (1) Grant of up to $850,000 (including direct and indirect costs) per year for three (3) years to investigate the chemicals, biology and health risk assessment of thirdhand smoke.

What kind of person are we looking for anyway? A project like this would require someone highly trained in toxicology and the physical sciences, no?

A successful application will demonstrate in the Key Personnel a diverse tobacco-related disease and control expertise that is consistent with the proposed aims in the identified two or three themed areas, such as basic, translational and (if applicable) clinical expertise including chemists, biological chemists, cellular and molecular toxicologists...

Fair enough.


Sounds like a job for the great mechanical engineer Stanton Glantz. He's no stranger to a TRDRP handout, plus he lives locally. Get him on the phone.

...physicists, physicians, psychologists...

Psychologists like Georg Matt, for example? He lives nearby too. and tobacco control professionals...

Those three magic words: tobacco control professionals. Gentlemen, the bank is open for business.

...epidemiologists, health economists, statisticians and modeling experts, etc.

Okay, we get it. Pretty much anyone can apply. Fill your boots guys. And just in case your consciences are niggling at you, remember...

Approximately $3.75 million is expected to be available for this RFP.

Okay? Sleep well.


Michael J. McFadden said...

Excellent Chris! And you've inspired me! When I read about this TRDRP grant I looked at my puppy dog and said "Wowser dowser Bowser! We're gonna be able buy the GOOD quality dog food for ya THIS winter!"

So I put on my thinkin' cap, read some research about the number of butts smokers smoke every year and the way deadly butts poison the water so that water fleas can't take it, and came up with the following:


According to the very best scientific researchers out there, smokers smoke about 5 trillion cigarettes per year. Now we all know that smokers are little piglets and never use ashtrays or anything, so let's assume they throw ALL 5 trillion butts into our planet's precious water system.

Now other fine researchers have found that even just a single 1/10th of a butt in a liter of water can kill a water flea! Let's take that as our "deadly level." Now, how many butts would be needed to reach that level in the world?  Hmmm... a bit more research turns up the fact that Earth's oceans contain about 1.35 sextillion liters of water (Wow! Sexystuff! This research grant is sounding better'n better!)

All you need to do is first divide the number of liters of water on earth by the number of liters of water smokers' 5 trillion butts per year would pollute to that minimum level - getting 50 trillion liters as an answer. And then second, find how many years it would take to reach a minimum pollution level of concern if ALL the smokers of the world dumped ALL of their butts into the water systems by dividing 50,000,000,000,000 liters into 1,350,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters.

The answer?  Slightly over 25 *million* years.  Of course that's assuming that none of the butts EVER biodegrade and we ignore all ordinary laws of chemistry, biology, and physics... but this *is* an antismoking study, right?

I can taste that 3.75 million bux already. And so can Bowser! Stanton Glantz and Winickoff can go jump in the lake: that thar gold is MINE!'

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

P.S. Don't throw a butt in the Gulf right now: y'might start a fire.

Unknown said...

Well done Chris, I knew you would blow this shite apart. Thank god there are people like you (and Michael J. McFadden) that can pull the Tobacco Control madness apart.

Excellent post.

Ben said...

And they aren't even ashamed to publicly announce this RFP.
But who the hell has 3.75 million of cash they can throw out the window?

Anon1 said... conduct research on (1) the impact of thirdhand tobacco smoke exposure from indoor surfaces and air quality on public health, and (2) the effects of water and soil contamination by cigarette butts on organisms and humans.
The health effects of thirdhand smoke are poorly understood.
Virtually nothing is known about the impact of cigarette butts on contamination of air, water and soil.
infrastructure in California that is expected to shed light on several concrete aspects
of the public health dangers of thirdhand smoke.
It is anticipated that the research outcomes will contribute to dramatically reducing the exposure

Good job, Chris. The document is agenda-driven. Given that there is no evidence of “thirdhand smoke danger” – which the report acknowledges, there are many statements that already assume a “danger” that should be indicated by the proposed “research”. To the extent that this organization wants the appearance of a “scientific basis” for its intended policy manipulation, i.e., defrauding the public, it is criminal conduct.

Belinda said...


the presumptions of funding from Cancer Research (CRUK) are similar:

The Tobacco Advisory Group (TAG) considers Project Grant applications for policy research and policy advocacy or campaigning activities in tobacco control.

TAG particularly funds research and activities that support:

Current UK policy priorities, e.g. see the 'Beyond Smoking Kills' report.
Greater regulation of all products containing tobacco and nicotine.
Greater tax and/or smuggling measures in the UK.
Tackling health inequalities and addressing the needs of groups with particularly high rates of tobacco use.

Anon1 said...

It is not surprising that California lead the “antismoking way” post-WWII, now looking into “thirdhand smoke danger”. It is a continuation of its strong eugenics heritage. California performed, by far, more sterilizations than any other state in the first half of the last century.
Some insight into the connection between American eugenics - California in particular - and Nazi eugenics.

P.S. Antismoking and anti-alcohol are critical aspects of [negative] eugenics in ensuring a “healthy” human herd.

Belinda said...


The money comes from a tax on cigarettes, voted in California in 1988.

Stupendous as this amount is, it seems to cover tobacco control only in California!

Anon1 said...

The idea of thirdhand smoke (or smoke residuals) seems to have originated with Chuck Crawford of Kimball Physics and supported by James Repace (both are rabid antismokers).
Crawford has had an antismoking policy at Kimball Physics based on "thirdhand smoke" since 1993. Visitors to Kimball Physics have to pass a “sniff test” (for smoke smell) conducted by a receptionist. If they fail the sniff test, access is barred. Crawford believes (with no evidence) that he has an “allergy” to not only secondhand smoke, but to smoke residuals up to six hours post smoking.

Per Chuck: “The Kimball Physics policies are focused on lesser maladies, which occur in real time, where the cause-and-effect relationship is brutally clear, and where tobacco residuals are obviously the cause.”
There is no scientific basis to this claim. There is no research that supports such a claim – none exists. Yet there is a body of evidence that would suggest somatization and/or feigning of symptoms. There are tests that would confirm/disconfirm this hypothesis.
The mind can harbor all manner of contorted, painful thought/emotion – e.g., fear, guilt. If someone is not willing to directly address the contortion, a ‘solution’, albeit dysfunctional, of mind is to project the inner contortion/conflict outward. Antismokers appear to be troubled minds. They have projected their mental contortion onto smoke/smokers. The more acute the inner contortion, the more fearful/hated the object of projection. The mind is convinced that the external object is the ‘source’ of its degree of discomfort and the only remediation is to remove the external object.

Chuck makes many absurd/unsubstantiated claims:
Company president Chuck Crawford defended the policy to the Associated Press, insisting that "people can be made ill by amounts of tobacco residues that are below the level of sensitivity the nose can detect ."

First, he [Chuck Crawford] was saying that the effects of second hand smoke are present even if no one is smoking . He said his allergy is so bad that a person who had a cigarette six hours previous still exhales smoke that effects him . The smell from the smokers' clothing also is an impediment .

In addition, some employees are allergic to smoke. "We can smell a smoker, typically, at a distance of a couple of feet," Mr. Crawford says. "In point of fact, they stink."

Dr. Chuck Crawford (Kimball Physics Vice President):
We would not allow a tobacco user to come into our house. My wife would have my head if I did.

Dr. Chuck Crawford, president of Kimble physics, spoke in opposition to SB 171 noting that people are allergic to both second hand and time-delayed smoke and that allergic reactions can occur in time-delayed smoke situations and therefore a businesses decision to discriminate on the basis of smoking is justified.

Kimball Physics, Inc., a manufacturer of scientific apparatuses based in Wilton, N.H., actually signs a contract with each of its approximately 45 non-smoking employees, guaranteeing that it will not hire tobacco users. Chuck Crawford, physicist and president of the firm, says the policy is designed primarily to protect workers' health, and has attracted job applicants who are allergic to tobacco smoke.

Anon1 said...

Where did the idea of ‘allergy to tobacco smoke’, let alone ‘allergy to smoke residuals’, come from? It has no scientific basis. Again, the indication is strong that Kimball is an enclave of somatizers – troubled minds. They have attempted to justify their projection as ‘allergy’. Unfortunately, where the mental dysfunction is not brought into check, the circumstance attracts others with similar dysfunctions, each reinforcing the other. The conduct towards smoke/smoking/smokers becomes bigoted and tyrannical.
Chuck was a rabid antismoker, on a par with the rabid antismokers that put the current antismoking crusade into motion, from the 1970’s. Chuck finally received ‘recognition’ for his deranged efforts with an award in 2007 from groups suffering the same derangement, declared an ‘unsung hero’. For heaven’s sake!!
“C. Everett Koop, who hailed Dr. Crawford as a tobacco control role model for the business community.” “And Dr. Crawford – whose concern for the health of his employees extended to non-work hours.” “Dr. Crawford is tireless in his efforts to make tobacco control everyone's goal. He shares the policy's successes and merits with partners and vendors in hopes of encouraging more businesses to follow in Kimball Physics' footsteps.” “Dr. Koop wrote that he hopes Dr. Crawford's innovative behavior might influence other business leaders to partner with employees in enacting similar tobacco-free workplace policies. We couldn't agree more and hope that naming Dr. Chuck Crawford the 2007 recipient of American Lung Association/C. Everett Koop Unsung Hero Award will encourage others to follow in Dr. Crawford's footsteps.”
This only indicates how unchecked derangement reinforces itself. Antismokers, in particular, are prolific at bestowing awards and accolades, i.e., reinforcement, on each other for their ‘efforts’. It is a dangerous closed loop. Finally, Chuck is also on the Board of Trustees of ASH.

Unknown said...

$ 3.75 Million.....
That's a lot of money to pay for a telephone poll.

Anon1 said...

I am hoping that you have noticed a pattern. Eugenicists/antismokers typically have a materialist background, e.g., engineers, physicists, biologists, zoologists. This is not to say that all those with materialist vocations are eugenicists. However, those that are promoters of eugenics typically have a materialist background and are disturbed minds. Between them they have not a skerrick of psychological insight, least of all into their own considerable mental dysfunction. And in enacting their derangement under the guise of "health promotion" do they promote the same dysfunction in the public at large.

Psychologists like Georg Matt, for example?
Georg is not a psychologist. Georg is a behaviorist, i.e., a materialist – no psychological aptitude. Not only can Georg not tell that the eugenics/healthist crusade is an assault on psychological health, but his promotion of thirdhand smoke is simply adding to the assault. He probably can’t even tell that he is a pawn in a eugenics network.
A destructive trend in academia over the last number of decades not appreciated by many has been the undermining of the discipline of psychology. Psychology departments around the world are dominated by behaviorists. Many have been properly renamed Departments of Behavioral Sciences. Some psychology departments that were once independent realms under the auspices of Arts or Science Faculties have now been absorbed into the Medical Faculty, e.g., Australia. These are now known as “Health Psychology” (i.e., behaviorism). And these are behaviorism specifically aligned to the eugenics-driven medical faculties. This behaviorism concocts the “strategies” of negative and positive operant conditioning, i.e., healthist propaganda, in coercing public compliance with eugenics ideals, e.g., antismoking. This circumstance is not coincidental. It has been orchestrated over the last number of decades to remove potential criticism of healthism as an assault on at least psychological health.

Anon1 said...

Even Jarn Banzhaf the ⅓ was a mechanical engineer before turning his “talents”(talons?) to Law. :)

Anon1 said...

For anyone interested in the “Business Plot” (fascist coup) of 1933/4 in the USA.

BBC documentary

Apologies for swamping the comments section.

Anon1 said...

From the Kimball Physics website:

Second: No tobacco use is allowed anywhere outside on Kimball Physics grounds (including entry areas, parking lots, picnic areas, grassed areas, fields, and hundreds of acres of woods). No tobacco use is allowed inside any motor vehicle, irrespective of ownership, while located on Kimball Physics grounds.

Third: No tobacco-residuals emitting person, article of clothing, or other object is allowed inside any Kimball Physics building. This restriction also applies to anyone or anything emitting characteristic tobacco odors. Anyone who has used a tobacco product within the previous two hours is automatically to be turned away, unless measures have been taken such that residuals-sensitive persons are not exposed. The determining factor, regarding allowable residuals levels and/or exposure durations, is whether anyone is either significantly bothered, or even worse, made ill.

…. Conversely (as is widely accepted), if an individual enters an area formerly occupied by a smoker, a contaminated automobile for example, the same effects occur. This sensitivity, of course, explains the need for non-smoking hotel rooms, non-smoking rental cars, tobacco-free taxis, and the like. A surprisingly large fraction of the population is sensitive to tobacco residuals.

….. Minor (and not so minor) illnesses which are caused by tobacco residuals include: headaches, stinging eyes, burning or constricting throats, chest congestion, hoarseness, coughing, nose bleeds, sinus problems, stomach pains, ear aches, asthma attacks, etc.

The policy was instituted in 1993.

There is no evidence for any of it. It sounds like classical somatization (psychogenically produced physical symptoms), e.g., a nocebo effect. All of the symptoms listed are typical anxiety reactions. And the setup at Kimball only reinforces the dysfunction.

Anon1 said...


Imagine you walk into the reception area of a building .
The receptionist stands up and begins to sniff you up and down . Where are you? A lunatic asylum? A vetrinary clinic? Dreaming? Some combination of the above? Actually you might be at Kimball Physics, an electronics manufacturer in Wilton, New Hampshire, where smokers are so un-welcome they are sniffed out at the gate .

Receptionist Jennifer Walsh of Kimball is charged with applying the sniff test on all employees and visitors to the company . If she catches even a whiff of tobacco smoke on your breath, hair or clothing, she will deny you entrance to the company's offices .

Company president Chuck Crawford defended the policy to the Associated Press, insisting that "people can be made ill by amounts of tobacco residues that are below the level of sensitivity the nose can detect ."

Chuck Crawford (Kimball Physics), 2007 American Lung Association/C. Everett Koop “Unsung Hero” Award Recipient

Dr. Crawford is tireless in his efforts to make tobacco control everyone's goal. He shares the policy's successes and merits with partners and vendors in hopes of encouraging more businesses to follow in Kimball Physics' footsteps.

The mentally dysfunctional now receive awards for torturing society with their dysfunction masqueraded as “health promotion”. Courtesy of C. Everett Kook, a rabid antismoker, and the dismembered-body-organ group, a Rockefeller concoction, the ALA.

Chuck Crawford, a member of the Board of Trustees, Action on Smoking and Health.

Anonymous said...

It was the TRDRP that funded the Enstrom and Kabat SHS study. They cut off the funding after seeing the preliminary results, although they claimed at the time that it was not the results but a tight budget that forced their decision. E & K then found a further $70,000 dollars from Big Tobacco to get their study ready for publication.
Lucky for TRDRP that they took that decision, otherwise they might have only had $3.68 million for this project.


Unknown said...

Wow, all that money for junk when California is laying off public safety staff. Makes absolutely no sense at all. The state is broke but is embarking on a witch hunt while laying off police and sheriff officers.

No maka sense!

jredheadgirl said...

Great post Chris! This needs to get out to the press. People in California (I'm on of them) would be furious if they were to become aware of this. When people voted for prop 99 back in 1988, they did so under the presumption that that money was to be raised for the purpose of covering the health costs attributed to society by smokers; they had no idea what the real agenda was then, and they have no idea about what it is now. Many people realize that the anti-smoking legislation has gone way off of the deep end; they just don't know why. The silence in the media has not helped, nor has the lack of investigative journalism with regards to this at many mainstream publications. You Chris, are likely one of the only investigative journalists digging deep into this issue. Thank you. The TRDRP has been operating with virtually no oversight whatsoever. Add to that, the collusion between the TRDRP, pharmaceutical incentives and the corrupt politicians who are supposed to represent all of us (as opposed to some of us).

We are living in a time of furloughs and layoffs in California. Everyone seems to be angry these days...the teachers' unions, the police league, librarians, workers from the DMV...the list goes on. There are empty store fronts all over Los Angeles now. People are out of work....the city is trying to declare bankruptcy..violent crime is on the rise in my neighborhood...the state can't balance its budget either....and there's $$$$$$$ for this? Whoa Nelly! If only the people knew...there's be pitchforks down at every city hall and at the footsteps of Sacramento demanding change. Real change.

Dick Puddlecote said...


Well no, actually, it's not anymore, is it?

On the bright side, the butts leaking toxins into the earth is going to give us some superb jollies in the next few years. :)

Anonymous said...

Mikle I was just trying to do those numbers this morning,I found a web site on that water flea but that site said 2 gallons of water per cig butt. But its like the snail darter the liberal green wacks used to shut down the hartsville nuclear reactor in tenn back in the 70s......I bought a house there back in the 90s and guess what was living and mating in the stream behind my house some 10 miles from the river they said was the only place these snails could live and got it SNAIL DARTERS.......Oh and al gore the bore was just 12 miles from me back then and well you could ride by his family farm and watch the illegals cropping his baccy........gore still raises tobacco on that farm somewhere around 100,000 pounds but dont expect the local farm agent to tell you anything about gores tobacco farming..its tight lipped where it concerns him locally...
But if he were to run for dog catcher he wouldnt get elected.


Michael J. McFadden said...

Harley, one butt per 2 gallons is in the same ballpark as the study I cited using 1/10th butt per liter (which is about 1 butt per 2.6 gallons if my quick head-math is correct.)

In any event, something MUST be done or all the water fleas may be dead in just 25 million years! (Assuming of course that all those scientific "laws" stay suspended...)


Anonymous said...

You mean we wont live to see the water fleas on the endangered species list.........This morning I took the wisconsin pounds per trash of each individual and compared it to the weight of a pack of butts.Anyway it worked out that each smoker would have to smoke roughly 1200 cigs a day to meet the daily trash amount of 3.5 pounds just for himself. Just think how many tobacco control sierra club members it would take to clean the waters just of wisconsin........When I think of your examples lastnite in your email of 1100 cleanup folks that recovered only 3-7 butts per hour. We could call this water ready stimulus jobs. Tossing butts for the recovery.........
Smokers should help in this recovery effort.......harley

Mark Wadsworth said...

That is a glorious find. Are you going to submit a proposal?

It will be great fun when they trumpet your results saying how evil third hand smoke is and a day later you admit the whole thing was faked.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Third Hand Smoke Campaign. New Weapon in the War on Tobacco
Can you get a MI from Third Hand Smoke? The California TRDRP (Tobacco Related Disease Research Program) offers researchers $3.75 million to prove "Yes, you can!"

Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, quoted in the article above, first defined "Third Hand Smoke" in his 2009 study, "Beliefs About the Health Effects of 'Thirdhand' Smoke and Home Smoking Bans". Third Hand Smoke is the toxic brew of gases and particles which cling to smokers' hair and clothing and remain deposited on furniture and carpeting long after second-hand smoke has cleared from a room.

Under Research Priorities, TRDRP lists as a primary area "Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease: Mechanisms by which tobacco use promotes development or complications of cardiovascular disease and stroke, e.g., by pathologic effects on vascular function, inflammation, oxidation, thrombosis or metabolism."

To examine this program, Google "California TRDRP Request for Proposals for TRDRP Initiative on Third Hand Smoke" and click on "Applications instructions and details of the RFP (pdf)."

From the TRDRP Applictions instructions:

"1.1 Thirdhand Smoke Exposure and Health Effects: The indoor surfaces and air quality component of this initiative is intended to help create and sustain a new research niche and infrastructure in California that is expected to shed light on several concrete aspects of the public health dangers of thirdhand smoke. The findings from this research may have broad implications in policy enactment in California to prevent human exposure to thirdhand smoke in homes, hotels, apartment buildings, personal vehicles, ...It is anticipated that the research outcomes will contribute to dramatically reducing exposure ... to potential disease-causing toxicants produced from thirdhand smoke."

"8. Award Details: The TRDRP has allocated up to $3.75 million over three years for this RFP ..." (Note: CA TRDRP is funded by a state tobacco tax paid by tobacco consumers.)

"9. Submission Procedures: All applications in response to this RFP must be submitted online no later than August 16, 2010 ..."

In interviews after publication of his 2009 study, Dr. Winickoff said to the BBC: "The dangers of third-hand smoke are very real - when you smoke, toxic particulate matter from tobacco smoke gets into your hair and clothing", and to Scientific American: "Smokers themselves are contaminated ... smokers actually emit toxins." In February 2010 after publication of a Berkley study on thirdhand smoke, co-author and scientist Lara Gundel said, "Nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing and get spread everywhere."

In addition to justification to prohibit smoking in any interior where third hand smoke can be deposited, the studies can also be used to prohibit the smoker himself from sharing a vicinity and contaminating the body of an innocent non-smoker. This will physically bar the smoker from employment, rental shelter, shopping and entertainment venues, business and medical offices, and all social intercourse with non-smokers.

A potent weapon indeed in the war against tobacco.

Anonymous said...

OMG.. I was just thinking how DANGEROUS first and second hand cooking smoke , camp fires and wood stove smoke must be for our health!!!

Michael J. McFadden said...

Anonymous, cooking a good healthy vegetarian dinner on a gas stove will expose your children to roughly the same amount of formaldehyde as smoking 100 cigarettes.

For woodsmoke issues see You'll find that cigarettes put out virtually NOTHING compared to such "ecological energy sources."


Anonymous said...

I was watching a star trekky convention on mtv/college hour and guess who invented the fazor,none other than stanton more will we have to endure wood burning smoke or coal fires for heat........yes that fazor saved the planet........only one only works on tv....sounds like second hand smoke only works on tv........

Michael J. McFadden said...

Belinda, as unbelievable as the amount of money Califoria's Antismokers get from that 1988 tax is, it's only a small part of what they get in that state. In addition to all the grants and such from the NicoGummyPatchyProductPushers they also share in over Eight Hundred MILLION dollars a year from the Master Settlement tax on smokers.

America's Antismokers are absolutley afloat in money. One of the smaller States, NJ, told their tobacco control program about ten years ago that their budget would be CUT to "just 14 million dollars" and the head of the group responded angrily that "OK. Everything stops. There's just no money."

When 14 million dollars is referred to as "no money" you KNOW something's rotten.

- Michael

Belinda said...

I read that it was about 5 per cent Michael, is that right?

Michael J. McFadden said...

Belinda, actually I don't know. California's total MSA payments from smokers were about 400,000,000.00 per year as of several years ago. That might have changed since then. Of that 400 million a certain percentage, fairly small but still sizable in terms of dollars, goes to "Tobacco Control."

- Michael

Anonymous said...

I used to work for Kimball Physics (KPI) in the 80s. The whole anti-smoking thing concocted by Dr. Crawford seems an apt foil for keeping prying eyes from noticing the multiple and improperly stored toxic chemicals and heavy metals to which employees are regularly exposed. While there, many of us became very ill. I, and many others, had to leave due to overuse injury/multiple toxicities/abnormal liver values- they used to clean out pesticides from the apple trucks in the parking lots where the supervisors would regularly go through our cars, taking notes on whatever was in our cars. After years of multiple illnesses, I now have what seems to be a progressive and likely terminal disease of neuropathy, weakening connective tissue, mast cells, CSF leak, and muscle wasting- don't know if all can be attributed to KPI, but burning titanium oxide at high temperatures, cutting oils in the skin, and toluene, benzene, trichlorethylene et al in enclosed asbestos spaces for 70 hours a week aren't exactly healthy lifestyles. Oh, and smoke wasn't the only thing the higher ups complained about- if they wanted to pick on you, they'd find something to "smell" that was distasteful enough to keep you from revealing the actions of the man behind the curtain.

Kin_Free said...

Looks like this is the eventual outcome - and it looks like this research has taken the full monty of 3 years funding;

"The TRDRP ... may fund one (1) Grant of up to $850,000 (including direct and indirect costs) per year for three (3) years to investigate the chemicals, biology and health risk assessment of thirdhand smoke."

Michael J. McFadden said...

And the 2014 update to it all: