Publicity seeker Nuttall 'incensed again' (From Wirral Globe)
Send us news by text, start your message Globe News and your send photos and videos to 80360
Publicity seeker Nuttall 'incensed again'
12:01pm Tuesday 29th November 2011 in Letters
I SEE Euro MP Paul Nuttall was once again incensed to write in to complain about new proposed anti-smoking legislation.
It is particularly interesting to see him criticise scientific evidence, something that the UKIP party he's a member of has little regard for and often cherry picks published papers to suit its own agenda.
He objects to the statistic that second-hand smoke in the enclosed environment of a car exposes to passengers to 23 times more toxins than a smokey bar.
If we were to suppose that it were merely only ten times more toxic, I struggle to see how he could possibly find objection in policies designed to protect the vulnerable.
It is a fact that second-hand smoke is very harmful to those exposed to it, particularly children.
It is a morally reprehensible view that a smoker's "right" to smoke supersedes the right of others to breath clean air.
Name and address supplied.
Comments(10)
DaveA
says...
5:16pm Tue 29 Nov 11
. Firstly on childhood exposure to second hand smoke (SHS) and lung cancer, none reach scientific statistical significance. Three show a non significant risk, eleven show a non significant PROTECTION and the seven show the null hypothesis.
On childhood exposure to SHS and asthma and atopy ( all allergic reactions) one of the few benefits is that exposure to SHS is that it seems to reduce allergic reactions. The Mishra paper from 2008 demonstrated that nicotine chemically suppresses the lung's response mechanisms.
The World Health Organization's 1998, Boffetta paper found that on children and Asthma that "Results: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval = 0.64-0.96). "
The retraction of the 23x appeared in the Canadian Journal of Medicine and was phrased "We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to no evidence for it in the scientific literature."
The subsequent 10x/11x think of a number comes from the Dr. Geoffrey Fong paper. The 11x is the artificial environment of all windows closed, vents closed and the air conditioning turned off. If the all windows are closed or even the driver's window is closed then the particle levels are entirely safe.
May I repeat Paul Nuttall is quite correct.
right-writes
says...
5:26pm Tue 29 Nov 11
A viewing of available data unto 2006 here (PDF) gives proof:
http://www.data-yard
.net/science/assorte
d/ets_lc_table.pdf
Go on anon... You were just trying to make mischief, and you reckon that UKIP is an easy target...
Well unfortunately for you sir/madam, our professional members actually do their research before they open their gobs.
Pity you don't.
ordinary personn
says...
2:09pm Wed 30 Nov 11
Nice try, DaveA but have you read all the papers included in that meta analysis? I haven't but I'd guess that a large majority are correlations (I base that on the assumption that nobody would get ethical permission to carry out a long term RCT exposing children to SHS and the variables would be impossible to control anyway. However, I accept that I may be wrong), now as I suspect you well know correlations don't prove cause and effect (and as our friend Popper tell us you can't completely prove anything) so really if I were you I'd be careful about saying Paul Nuttall is quite correct.
As I have said before - anybody can use science and stats to SUPPORT their their point of view and refute another's but they can't prove it. So in this case I'd rarther err on caution and not expose children or anybody else to SHS. Smokers can carry on smoking in their cars as long as they like so long as they are alone, their passengers also smoke or their passengers are able to choose whether or not to be in the car.
right-writes
says...
2:32pm Wed 30 Nov 11
The writer of the letter states that it is A FACT that SHS is particularly harmful to children...
Has s/he proof of this?
Following is a quote from Nuttall's letter:
"The proposed ban is based on junk science and would be an outrageous infringement of civil liberties. Not only would it be wrong, but it would be impossible to police.
Nobody would encourage people to smoke and no one thinks forcing children to breath your smoke is wise. But there are such things as car windows."
He is nowhere suggesting that children be tied into the car and forced to breathe cigarette smoke, in fact he is expressly suggesting that we don't do this.
What is proven though, is that the fumes from a bus/lorry/car (diesel or petrol) is far more dangerous than cigarette smoke, and people are not being told to wear gas masks as they board a bus.
What Nuttall is really complaining about is nanny statism and suggesting that people be allowed to use their noddle, rather than have their every waking moment legislated and controlled at huge expense and without their consent.
Spiffy
says...
3:59pm Wed 30 Nov 11
....
Ding ding ding we have a winner, folks. Couldn't have put it better myself !
ordinary personn
says...
4:00pm Wed 30 Nov 11
However, I guess that as you say it has been proven that fumes from vehicles are more harmful than cigarette smoke that you either have not read my post properly or chose to ignore my point i.e. you CANNOT ever prove anything. But while we are on that point, did I hear that Mr Nuttall drives a large 4x4 vehicle in urban areas? If he does, you aren't doing him any favours with your point about motor vehicles. However, you do have a good point when you say that the letter writer uses the word "fact". So I am beginning to think that you read my post but chose to ignore what did not fit in with your world view.
My premise is that science, whether good or otherwise, cannot be used to prove anything. Indeed, if you read DaveA's post he cites odds ratios and confidence intervals. Unfortunately, he then states that Mr Nuttall is "quite correct" when the stats he has cited simply support the hypotheses not prove them. You can only DISPROVE something, it is simply not possible to prove anything. I too want people to think, hence, my compulsion to highlight this issue. Otherwise people will go on thinking scientists must be correct and that they prove things when really they just support or refute hypotheses. So, I exercise my right to think and choose not to expose children or anybody else to SHS.
bickyboy
says...
10:35am Thu 1 Dec 11
If youre in a car with kids, or non smoking passengers and youre smoking, youre a stupid, irresponsible idiot and the law should be framed to allow prosecution.
If youre on your own in that car, you should then be allowed the right to poison your own body with carcinogenic filth if that is what you choose.
Spiffy
says...
2:55pm Thu 1 Dec 11
Spiffy
says...
3:02pm Thu 1 Dec 11
bickyboy wrote:What if it's the kids who are smoking ? They do, you know. And they do it in public in the streets. No one can physically stop them from doing it either. Children have rights.
I dont care what the scientific evidence does, or does not prove. The anti smoking lobby has gone too far in its escalating campaign of control freakery.
If youre in a car with kids, or non smoking passengers and youre smoking, youre a stupid, irresponsible idiot and the law should be framed to allow prosecution.
If youre on your own in that car, you should then be allowed the right to poison your own body with carcinogenic filth if that is what you choose.
...
I don't think the Social Engineers have quite thought this one through :)
says...