Senses working overtime
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 13:44 The BBC today reports that:
Smoking in the car, even with the windows open or the air conditioning on, creates pollution that exceeds official "safe" limits, scientists say.
The claim is based on a study – the largest of its kind, allegedly – by the Scottish Centre for Indoor Air at Aberdeen University, published in Tobacco Control.
It is revealing that the authors have concluded their report by endorsing a call by the Royal College of Physicians Tobacco Advisory Group for a ban on smoking in cars.
Publicly supporting prohibition hardly suggests neutrality.
Then again, it's no surprise. Aberdeen has form, you see. In fact the university is up there with the universities of Bath and Stirling when it comes to tobacco control.
Three years ago I questioned Aberdeen's response to the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill, pointing out that:
Aberdeen's feeble submission contains not a shred of evidence or research to support a ban on tobacco displays and vending machines ...
We are told that the university "is committed to seeking and providing evidence in all areas of research" but there's precious little sign of it here. So much for one of the "major centres of teaching and research in medicine and life sciences".
The BBC has quoted me in today's report, 'Smoking in the car 'breaks toxic limit''.
Someone called Jo Smith then sent Forest an email fisking my response. It reads:
But Simon Clark, director of the smokers' lobby group Forest, says: "We don't encourage adults to smoke in a car if small children are present, out of courtesy if nothing else, but we would strongly oppose legislation to ban smoking in cars.
Well you could hardly say you do encourage it in those circumstances, could you?
"According to research, 84% of adults don't smoke in a car with children present so legislation to ban it would be disproportionate."
So the 84% unaffected will not care. And the other 16% are so stupid (or don’t care) that they need to be stopped by legislation. So how is that disproportionate? It only affects those that it needs to.
"In terms of civil rights we are entering difficult territory. For most people a car is their private space. If you ban smoking in cars with children, the next logical step is to ban parents from smoking in the home."
What nonsense!
"Parents must be allowed to use their common sense, and most of the time they do. There is no need for further regulation."
Yes there is. 16% have no common sense and their drug addiction clearly takes priority over their children’s health.
We have also received an email that reads:
Whilst I have to applaud the advice not to smoke if there are any children in the car out of courtesy, what about other adults who by their own choice do not wish to smoke?
Interesting that you should mention civil rights. As an adult of 49 years I find the one sided arguments citing children's health particularly annoying, yet as an adult no-one seems to care for my health. I won't bore you with why I do not smoke, suffice to say I have never been interested in smoking, not even when school friends were smoking behind the bike sheds.
I am cynical enough to accept that research figures can be manipulated to reflect the required outcome in any argument, however, as a motorcyclist, I do find that car drivers who smoke do not seem to have the same level of courtesy when they are driving, regularly flicking their ash out of the window, and even the unextinguished butt.
The best is yet to come, though:
I do not like the smell of cigarette smoke, and have acquired the ability to determine if, when out motorcycling, I am following a smoker, just by the smell of that smoke and often the car can be as much as 100+ metres ahead of me - not bad when travelling at 70mph on a motorway.
Talk about senses working overtime! If he really can detect the smell of smoke at a distance of 100+ metres whilst travelling at 70mph (and wearing a motorcycle helmet!) I suggest he donates his nasal glands to the nation so we can all smell what he's smelling.
Our correspondent then continues:
Another thing, is the current ban on smoking in public places. Whilst it had the interests of the non smoker at the heart of its objectives, I find this has been a total waste of time. I work in a large industry and often find that smokers will stand just outside the doorways to my workshop with the result that any smoke will get back into the building anyway.
The same is true for pubs and shops too. However, I did find it interesting that, on a previous visit to the Brands Hatch motor racing circuit, they had signs posted on their offices advising people not to smoke within 35 metres of the buildings.
I personally think that a ban on all smoking would be better, but a good starting point would be when in vehicles, along with keeping windows closed, limiting car stereo volumes, and of course banning all mobile phone use when in a car, even hands free use.
I accept that eveyone is allowed to make thier [sic] own choices in life, that smokers and non-smokers will never see eye to eye, and that eventually death comes to us all, but I would prefer to die by my own actions, rather than suffering from a cancer caused by someone else's "lack of courtesy".
Reader Comments (16)
I managed to find the original paper. It was published in January 2012, so odd that the BBC run a story on it today. One interesting fact which emerges is the authors' reliance on the level of PM2.5 particulates, which they maintain, giving references, is a good marker for the level of ETS. They then refer to a WHO 2010 publication which is where the figure of 25mugms/m3 comes from. At first sight this appears not to be consistent with the WHO's repeated claim that there is no safe level of passive smoking. Perhaps the particular types of PM2.5 particles found in tobacco smoke are deadlier than the average PM2.5 particle? If so, why did the authors use PM2.5 as a measure of levels of ETS?
Sorry, absent mindedly clicked the buttton. If there is a toxic level of ETS as measured by PM2.5 levels, any smoking pub or cafe installed with air cleaning equipment would be well below this level, demolishing the argument that air cleaning is an ineffective measure against the harm from ETS.
Then there is involuntary exposure in the work place to consider. I smoke in my car and that smoke could be around for hours after I have parked it up for the night. So why should a car thief risk getting heart disease just so that he can earn a living? Clearly his right to life trumps my right to smoke in my car.
The BBC!
That paragon of virtue?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Why today? - pretty obvious really, the bill to ban smoking in cars is due for its second reading in the House of Commons on the 2nd of November. This is the start of the BBC-aided and abetted ramping up of support for the bill, as they have always done for any anti-smoking legislation. Impartiality - forget it!
New cars no longer have ash trays fitted as standard fit. This could be why some people flick small items out of the car.
Your correspondent, Simon, sounds like a character straight from Richard Littlejohn's "you couldn't make it up" column.
He can detect the smell of cigarette smoke at a distance of 100+ metres whilst travelling at 70mph (and wearing a motorcycle helmet!) I dread to think how far one would have to be from this character in order to relieve yourself of a little wind?
But as we all know, the great anti-smoking debate brings these people out by the cart-load. You can spot them a mile away, by the smell of tobacco smoke in their hair and their clothes - all caused through us dreadful smokers of course.
I have a very sensitive sense of smell (sometimes unfortunately) and I can say with all honesty that when I have been smoking a cigar in our living room at night and then go in there the following morning, I cannot smell a thing - how this guy manages to smell a fag-end at 70 mph on a motorway beats me!
I wasn't aware there were any safe official limits of exposure to ETS. We're constantly reminded with the same old hackneyed soundbite - there is no safe limit blah blah blah...'
What I find most disturbing about your correspondent is the fact that somebody who is clearly as mad as a hatter (judging by their comment about being able to smell smoke at 70mph on a motorway) is out and about on our highways at all.
Has anybody else, like me, noticed how conspicuous by its comparative absence this story has been in the news? It’s appeared here and there, for sure, but in comparison with other anti-smoking measures it’s been remarkably under-reported, as has the whole Stoptober thingy – again comparatively speaking.
Neither are good news for smokers, for sure, but the lack of fanfare which has accompanied these latest proposed restrictive measures almost seems as if this Government, unlike the last one, are almost embarrassed that they are happening “on their watch.” Perhaps they’re simply now aware that, unlike in the run-up to the smoking ban, smokers, increasing numbers of non-smokers and the few freedom-respecting MPs are now much more vocal (and well informed) in their objections, and they are hoping that if they keep quiet enough about both, people simply won’t notice what’s brewing until it’s all done and dusted.
But whatever the reason, in a backhanded sort of way, it's a tentatively good sign that “all things anti-smoking” are no longer seen by those in power as a wonderful political tool to show how much they “care” about the public’s health and much more of a political burden which they are somehow duty-bound to keep lugging around with them, whether they want to or not.
Now all we have to hope for is that the realisation will come (always a slow process amongst those in Government, most of whom aren’t smart enough to tie their own shoelaces without supervision) that they can easily rid themselves of that burden through the simple expedient of severe and drastic cuts in funding to all those anti-smoking leech-groups. Surely an easy task in these times of economic slump and funding cuts …
This large scale study involved 17 subjects , only 3 in the control group and just over 100 journeys
Would that be the same BBC that employed sex abusers, hid it, excused it, possibly even encouraged it a bit, and now takes some sort of moral high ground aka snobbery based on propaganda that its organisation, well past it's sell by date, is too idle to test and encourage to see if it stands up to scrutiny of the very clever manipulated press release sent out by the political lobby groups that pose as "charities" which no one trusts any more after Jimmy Savile demonstrated what we all know - too many are in it for themselves and they don't give a damn about those they use to justify their existence and their highly paid jobs.
Btw, is Jo Smith yet another tobacco control industry activist who has managed to blag her way into the DoH because it seems these are the only people who complain when the other reasonable side - as opposed to the hysterics side - is put.
Jo - please be assured that what I do with my children, my family, my body, my car or my home is none of your damn business and it never has been and never will be.
If you don't have kids go get some of your own and get your hands off ours. They are quite capable of speaking up if anything bothers them and believe me they really do but they are not yours to use as human shields to push your own immoral view of the how the world should be run.
If you don't want kids, maybe you should just get a life and stay out of ours.
Isn't 'Jo' a female spelling - as opposed to the male 'Joe'?
A female motorcyclist ( I, certainly, haven't seen too many of those ) driving at 70 mph, presumably wearing a helmet if not some sort of filter through which they can smell smoke in a car 100 yards away through all the grit and gunge in between ? Yeah, right. Clown.
These antis are so carried away in their own feeble minds that they would, no doubt, expect us to believe the moon to be made of green cheese, if they said so. They're beyond parody.
Frank, there were two different emails. The second, allegedly written by a motorcyclist, was by a man called Paul.
In which case I, unreservedly, apologise to Jo but only for confusing her with a Walter Mitty 'motorcyclist'. It's Paul that's the clown.
As a motorcyclist I have to object to what 'Paul' writes about SHS at 100 metres/yards, if I follow a moped or scooter down a country lane on a calm clear day I can smell the synthetic 2 stroke oil as it is has a sweet scent at about 50 KPH/30 MPH, but on a motorway at 115 KPH/70 MPH, nope not a chance. The aroma of burnt oil is much more pungeant and in greater volume than a cigarette. Some outraged of Bexhill in that comment, methinks.