Swivel-eyed zealots and leeches, herding the uninformed:

Posted on May 21, 2015 by KG

‘Most people know of the dangers of second-hand smoke, but not many have heard of the third-hand threat.
Research has proven second-hand smoke to be dangerous, especially in cars, with more than 350 people dieing in New Zealand each year because of it.
But now the concept of third-hand smoke is starting to be raised.
Third-hand smoke is the transferral of toxins and carcinogens from clothing or other surfaces to another person – for example, an adult who goes outside to smoke and then picks up children afterwards, a Ministry of Health spokeswoman said…’
What “research”? Give us a link to it, and the methodology.
Until then, it’s all bullshit, propaganda and self-serving hype by parasites living (very comfortably) off fads and scare campaigns.
I wonder how they arrived at the figure of 350 people dying each year from secondhand smoke, “especially in cars”?
They had some method of discounting exhaust fumes, diesel fumes in traffic, exposure to chemicals and chemical fumes, cooking oil smoke, outgassing from the plastics used in car interiors etc etc etc?
The figure quoted is either a wild guess or a flat-out lie.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Swivel-eyed zealots and leeches, herding the uninformed:

  1. k2 says:
    May 21, 2015 at 06:47

    I pointed out the poor research and lack of proof that 2nd hand smoke was dangerous to a professional engineer friend who should have known better. His response was “So what? Who want’s to smell that stuff anyway?”

    Which is what it actually comes down to in an age that’s making the Victorians look like wild eyed libertines.

    • KG says:
      May 21, 2015 at 07:04

      Exactly k2.
      And note the language used in the article: “.. an adult who goes outside to smoke and then picks up children afterwards, a Ministry of Health spokeswoman said…’
      This has become a sickening, emotion-driven, feminised nanny-state socialist swamp.
      The media is filled with propaganda and the relentless promotion of feminised, sanctimonious drivel, stories about women, written by women for the consumption of idiot women. :evil:
      And very many younger men, who pride themselves on being so “inclusive” and “tolerant” and modern doncha know are too fucking stupid to see that they’re merely useful tools for the feminazis.

      • Cadwallader says:
        May 21, 2015 at 07:38

        Absolutely. I predict that similar emotion drenched piffle will be expressed about sugar in the not too distant future. What is it with these ugly tarts that their natural instinct is to purse their lips (like cats’ bums) in disapproval? I haven’t seen your machine gun icon for a week or two…..

  2. Mathew says:
    May 21, 2015 at 12:50

    I don’t smoke and don’t much care for the smell of it, however i’ll start believing all the hysterics from the usual people when it’s banned, after all if it’s the root of all evil, shouldn’t we ban it then. Isn’t the lives of so many more important than the taxes raised from it….. suddenly the concern, the think-of-the-chilllldren evaporates.

  3. MacDoctor says:
    May 21, 2015 at 13:38

    That second-hand smoke contributes to the disease burden, particularly asthma, is well-established. However, putting a body count to it is purest twaddle. I know of no methodology that does not involve swooping flights of fantasy.

    As for “third hand smoke”, I think this is one hand too many. There is absolutely no evidence that smoke in car seats, clothing, carpeting and curtains has any effect other than smell bad. There is not even good evidence that toxins from smoke are deposited into material.

  4. Wombat says:
    May 21, 2015 at 16:16

    Lets do some research on the ill effects on our health from stress related to totalitarian encroachment of our liberty.

    No? Thought not…

  5. Michael in Nelson says:
    May 23, 2015 at 11:09

    I agree about the attributing a number of deaths to the ‘second hand’ smoke BS. They can’t even point to a specific person when they start smoking and say that they will die from a smoking related disease. The death rates use the population in general. I wonder what the nannies would say if someone could prove that their genetic makeup would allow them to smoke with impunity. Want to bet the controllers would say it didn’t matter and that the person choosing to smoke should still be prevented from doing so?

    • dondiego says:
      May 23, 2015 at 21:55

      I’m sure I read an article or study or somesuch linked to by (Sir) Bob Jones. There was a piss-take he did about smoking mice floating around the web a few years back.

      I’ve been breathing burnt racing car fuel (with a hint of tyre smoke) all day, and this post has inspired me to compliment the glass of merlot with a small cigar~
      http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif

      • dondiego says:
        May 23, 2015 at 21:58

        Oops. The study was about the *benefits* of passive smoking. Maybe it was even aired here?

  6. KG says:
    May 24, 2015 at 00:47

    “I’ve been breathing burnt racing car fuel (with a hint of tyre smoke) all day, and this post has inspired me to compliment the glass of merlot with a small cigar~”
    http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif
    Merlot and a cigar – perfect!