Barely a day goes by without news of some research that finds that smoke from just one specific plant, tobacco, causes symptoms and diseases that have already been known to be caused or aggravated by pesticides or dioxins. Barely a day passes that the evidence against pesticides and dioxins is not removed from that fat file to be dropped into the case against tobacco and smoking.
Studies by University of California San Diego, and Harvard, found that nicotine traces in toenail clippings provide "predictors"- of heart problems. The big hint-hint of the articles was that nicotine, and "smoking"-, was a threat, perhaps a link, perhaps a cause, of heart disease. This provides yet another justification to create tobacco prohibition. Those who'd challenge that risk being accused of the top heresy---supporting "big tobacco"-.
Though expert researchers must know of the plethora of pesticide residues that contaminate most cigarettes (tobacco being about the fifth most pesticide intensive crop), and of the dioxin in the smoke from chlorine pesticides and chlorine-bleached cigarette paper, those details were neither mentioned as relevant, nor dismissed as irrelevant, to heart disease.
There is no end of available information about pesticides and dioxin causing heart disease, among many other illnesses. The nicotine found in toenails was not so much a "predicter"- of heart disease, but a big clue that the test subjects had been exposed, unknowingly, to residues of any number of tobacco pesticides, and to the dioxin and other harmful non-tobacco cigarette constituents in the smoke from the chlorinated residues and paper.
What kind of cigarettes the subjects smoked, be it plain tobacco, grow-your-own, or the chlorine/pesticide-contaminated commercial kind, remains their little secret.
If they didn't know about the coronary effects of the industrial stuff that officials still approve of in cigarettes, then the researchers are patently incompetent. More likely, they worked only to aid and abet the pesticide and chlorine industries' (including cigarette makers) evasion of proper scrutiny, PR disasters, liabilities, and significant penalties. The best way to protect the cig cartel is to pretend to be against it, by doing nothing effective---by doing as little as possible---by keeping the blame exclusively on that sinful, unpatented, public-domain tobacco and as far from the cigarette manufacturing process as possible. Hence, being "anti tobacco"- hugely benefits the cigarette cartel, including their investors and insurers.
The researchers could have looked for traces of pesticides, chlorine, and dioxin in those toenails to link that to heart disease statistics. Nicotine has no links to heart disease. Natural plants, including tobacco, cannot produce dioxins.
This study could have been useful in the struggle against pesticides, chlorine, and dioxin by providing a new way to test patients for exposures. Unfortunately, it added more ammo to the liability-evading, distracting, corporate-sponsored, mass-scapegoating of tobacco and smokers for crimes done by private chemical industries, be that in typical cigarettes or elsewhere. They are stealing our evidence against chemical manufacturers and users, and our evidence against their complicit allies in government offices. Such researchers act as Company Doctors, telling coal miners with black lung disease that they just have bad colds. If the miner happens to be a smoker, well, case closed. It's not the mine operator's fault.
Not long ago, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania found that mothers who smoke increase the risk that their babies will have deformities, specifically webbed toes and fingers in this case. That is, the damage to the babies was the mothers' fault, and the fault, again, of that conveniently evil target, unpatented, public-domain tobacco. But, it is famous, especially from the Viet Nam horrors of Agent Orange, that dioxin, by-product of industrial chlorine, causes fetal damage and baby deformities, everything from facial distortions to webbed fingers and toes, and beyond.
The researchers didn't report even thinking of the words "chlorine"-, "pesticides"-, "dioxin"-, or "Agent Orange"-, let alone the names of manufacturers like Dow, Monsanto and DuPont. Researchers, again, neither mentioned those integral aspects, nor dismissed them as irrelevant. Why open that Pandora's can of worms?
The cruelty of blaming mothers for harming their own babies in this way is compounded by the threats that are rising in some quarters to actually remove children from parents who "smoke"-.
No mother knew or was told about, or warned about, or protected from, the industrial contaminants in their smoking products that are known to cause fetal damages. Indeed the mothers thought and were told, even by their own tax-paid public health officials, that the stuff was tobacco"-period. An average person treats smoking "warnings"- as they do advice to not go swimming alone, or to not eat too much, or the like. The vague, non-specific, cig warnings are so grossly insufficient that, of course, few heed them. It's all Motherly Advice, to be ignored.
No one warned the mothers about, or protected them from, Contaminated Tobacco, if, of course, the stuff was tobacco. It could as well have been processed wood pulp, or peanut shells, or coffee bean hulls, made in patented ways to "simulate"- tobacco""that is, to lie by its appearance. Though these other cellulose sources probably don't contain as many pesticide residues as tobacco, they are still chlorine contaminated, and the cig is still wrapped in dioxin-producing chlorine bleached paper. No warnings about any of that are required or publicized even by the most "concerned"-, zealous, pretend-progressive, "anti tobacco"- legislator.
Those mothers, and their babies, constitute important evidence against pesticides and dioxins. The "anti tobacco"- crusade has stolen that evidence, the horror of which could have brought a lot of previously unconcerned people, including honest liability attorneys, into anti-pesticide action. And the deceived mothers and babies can sure use some help.
Elsewhere, in order to craft bans on smoking in cars with children, we are told that over 700,000 children are afflicted with middle ear infections caused by "environmental tobacco smoke"-. Tobacco must be one damn bad plant. What disease does it not cause? It's a wonder the Pentagon hasn't dropped it on Al-Qaeda.
As for the ear infections, once again, there is substantial, easily-found information available about such maladies caused by pesticides and dioxin. It's doubtful, improbable, that the researchers that found those hundreds of thousands of child victims of tobacco smoke, supposedly, spent a nanosecond addressing industrial chemicals and dioxin either in typical cigarettes or elsewhere. The ear infections might have been, and probably were, effects of already-identified ear infection causes like highway pollution, industrial pollution, PCBs, dioxins, and pesticides in homes, yards, playgrounds and schools, or anywhere. Since there are no studies provided about how much dioxin or pesticide fumes are or can be delivered to anyone by "environmental tobacco smoke"-, it's only speculation that any of those industrial toxins and carcinogens got to kids by either "environmental tobacco smoke"- or smoke from whatever a cig may be made from.
It's not always easy to find the research funders, but it would be no surprise if the studies were funded by elements of the chlorine/petrochemical industries"-including their PR firms, the insurers that insure and invest in them, or their related foundations. It is unimaginable, in fact, that the studies were not funded by them, directly or indirectly.
But, there is an ironic silver lining here. Since virtually every serious disease said to be "smoking related"- or "tobacco related"- is identical to effects of pesticide and/or dioxin exposure, we have the "anti smoking"- crusaders identifying the diseases caused by those industrial substances, the very things they dread facing consequences for. As they try to scapegoat tobacco plants, and smokers, for their crimes, they point us to their crimes. In articles about the latest research, generally one can replace the words "smoking"- and "tobacco"-, etc., with "pesticides and dioxins"- and find, at last, some truth.
Are ear infections caused by smoke from tobacco or any plants? Hardly. That they are caused by industrial chemical pollution, pesticides and dioxin is not a question.
Heart disease caused by plant smoke? Not likely. But it's known and well-established to be caused by industrial chemical toxins. No one, and no ones heart or ear, has evolved long enough to tolerate any of that novel industrial stuff.