Rogue Court Street worker posts smoking ban signs

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Court Street is now a no-smoking zone!

Someone working in the Department of Education building on the Downtown street declared a smoking ban within 50 feet of the structure’s entrance by posting homemade “no smoking” signs near the front door.

The signs warn tobacco tokers not to indulge unless they head down nearby Joralemon and Livingston streets, since even going across the street would still leave the smoker within the forbidden zone.

A Department of Education rep said the sidewalk no-smoking zone is not the official policy of the building, and the agency is trying to figure out who put up the warnings.

“It was created by someone in the building who taped it to a window,” said spokeswoman Marge Feinberg.

But others said they liked the idea. The amount of smoke that has been flooding into the edifice is a problem, according to a security guard.

“People are coming in and out of the building,” she said.

A guard did not know who put the signs up, which cite a state law banning smoking within 50 feet of entrances to buildings that house 100 or more employees of a state agency. Feinberg pointed out that the department is a city, not state, agency.

A 40-year Department of Education employee — and non-smoker — applauded the initiative.

“I think it’s probably a good idea to keep that smoke away,” said Staten Island resident Philip Wladessa.

But a man working at a stand outside said smokers ignore the signs by taking their drags just a few feet away from the entrance.

“All of them used to come back here, smoking,” said Sam Sahan, adding that he did not mind the signs.

The signs came down soon after this paper starting asking questions, but the clean-air vigilante remains at large.

Reach reporter Megan Riesz at or by calling (718) 260-4505. Follow her on Twitter @meganriesz.
Updated 10:17 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Ellen from BH says:
Uh....they've been there for more than a year so way to jump on a story.
May 12, 2014, 7:39 am
NYPD from NY says:
I bet it was that no good louse swampyankee from "runined" brooklyn.
May 12, 2014, 8:50 am
for all from Brooklyn says:
Ban smoking in all public places - streets, sidewalks, parks, waterways, public space and rooftops in public/private buildings, etc.

Permit only in private clubs/bars and dwellings by permit for those with compliant air filtration systems required to submit independent third-party inspection reports quarterly with fines of $1000.00 for non-compliant use (city to administer fine automatically without notice or visit when not renewed or inspected by due dates). Require signs to be posted in front of all approved locations with license number and statement to call 311 if smoking odors are noticed.

Let's put a stop to the discomfort of smoking to the innocent public once an for all. Let Brooklyn lead the way to an improved quality of life for all!!!
May 12, 2014, 9:14 am
jjm from c. hill says:
What a waste, people are gonna smoke wherever & whenever they want. The useless smoking ban in parks, beaches, etc. is being ignored heavily. Heck, people are smoking blunts in those places. Besides, who are they to say you can't smoke outside in the open air? Gimme a break
May 12, 2014, 9:44 am
Rufus Leaking from BH says:
May 12, 2014, 11:15 am
dc from park slop says:
for all your an idiot What about the trucks buses factories etc that give off fume! Ban them also? Your going to do that for cigarettes make sure its done for all the incense pot loving hipsters which is just as offensive
May 12, 2014, 11:34 am
dc from park slop says:
for all your an idiot What about the trucks buses factories etc that give off fume! Ban them also? Your going to do that for cigarettes make sure its done for all the incense pot loving hipsters which is just as offensive
May 12, 2014, 11:34 am
ty from pps says:
Umm... DC, we do have laws about the fumes given off by trucks, buses and factories. Have you heard of catalytic converters? unleaded gas? smokestack scrubbers? emissions standards? fuel quality standards? etc. etc.

That aside, the smoking ban in the parks has actually been quite effective. The number of people smoking in Prospect Park is a tiny fraction of what it used to be. Of course there are still people smoking, but not as many as there used to be.
May 12, 2014, 12:04 pm
NYPD from NY says:

Don't bother with this dullard dc. He never learned the difference between "your" and "you're" and just had to slip the laziest burn, "hipster" into his inane rant.
May 12, 2014, 12:23 pm
harleyrider1978 from the world says:
The Führer thanks you from the grave:

Hitler was a Leftist
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.
May 12, 2014, 2:14 pm
harleyrider1978 from the world says:
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
May 12, 2014, 2:14 pm
harleyrider1978 from The World says:
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.

May 12, 2014, 2:16 pm
ty from pps says:
I would love to read the other conspiracy theories Mr. HarleyRider enjoys delving into....
May 12, 2014, 3:28 pm
harleyrider1978 from The World says:
Conspiracy not at all just plain outright facts!

Like this for instance

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
May 12, 2014, 7:12 pm
harleyrider1978 from The World says:
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.

[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
May 12, 2014, 7:13 pm
harleyrider1978 from The World says:
If you’re afraid of second-hand smoke, you should also avoid cars, restaurants…and don’t even think of barbecuing.

here are just some of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke and what else contains them:

Arsenic, Benzine, Formaldehyde.

Arsenic- 8 glasses of water = 200 cigarettes worth of arsenic

Benzine- Grilling of one burger = 250 cigarettes

Formaldehyde – cooking a vegetarian meal = 100 cigarettes

When you drink your 8 glasses of tap water (64 ounces) a day, you're safely drinking up to 18,000 ng of arsenic by government safety standards of 10 nanograms/gram (10 ng/gm = 18,000ng/64oz) for daily consumption.

Am I "poisoning" you with the arsenic from my cigarette smoke? Actually, with the average cigarette putting out 32 ng of arsenic into the air which is then diluted by normal room ventilation for an individual exposure of .032 ng/hour, you would have to hang out in a smoky bar for literally 660,000 hours every day (yeah, a bit hard, right?) to get the same dose of arsenic that the government tells you is safe to drink.

So you can see why claims that smokers are "poisoning" people are simply silly.

You can stay at home all day long if you don’t want all those “deadly” chemicals around you, but in fact, those alleged 4000-7000 theorized chemicals in cigarettes are present in many foods, paints etc. in much larger quantities. And as they are present in cigarettes in very small doses, they are harmless. Sorry, no matter how much you like the notion of harmful ETS, it’s a myth.
May 12, 2014, 7:16 pm
Jay from nyc says:
oh brother here we go again with this garbage that second hand smoke is safe, etc. Second hand smoke kills, moreover a smokers clothes are even toxic to be around.
There is nothing safe about this and it IS a hazard to the health of all citizens, and smoking serves ZERO purposes except to make rich white dudes get rich off of the early deaths of smokers. Enough already. Guss what Harley, (
May 12, 2014, 7:43 pm
harleyrider1978 from Pick any town says:
Good article on the corruption of science by ‘Public Health’ here:
May 12, 2014, 7:44 pm
harleyrider1978 from Any town USA says:
oh brother here we go again with this garbage that second hand smoke is safe, etc. Second hand smoke kills, moreover a smokers clothes are even toxic to be around.
There is nothing safe about this and it IS a hazard to the health of all citizens, and smoking serves ZERO purposes except to make rich white dudes get rich off of the early deaths of smokers. Enough already. Guss what Harley,


Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''


All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
May 12, 2014, 7:45 pm
Harleyrider1978 from Anywhere but here says:
BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax

The thirdhand smoke scam
May 12, 2014, 7:47 pm
harleyrider1978 from The Sticks says:
Second hand smoke kills

Jay I dare ya to start naming the dead to second hand smoke,you know just a few hundred or so as it should be easy since your side claims 50,000 deaths a year. Please provide evidence with a detah certificate stating death by second hand smoke..........Come on now prove your claim!

Jay just to save yourself and everybody else here time just admit its all a HOAX! OK You see all those deaths are a MYTH made up on the governments SAMMEC computer modeling system from tortured to death risk assessment pure JUNK SCIENCE!

The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.
May 12, 2014, 7:57 pm
jay from nyc says:
again Harley, you AINT the surgeon general, if you were so brilliant you would have the job, but you don't, so that pretty much speaks for itself.
And yes, courts too have found it to be dangerous and proven as a matter of law that second hand smoke is dangerous.
Here is one decision from not long ago
Here is another Unger v. Unger, 274 N.J.Super. 532, 53 and here is another LIzzo v. Lizzo, 18 N.Y.S.2d 934 and another Badeaux v. Badeaux, 541 So.2d 301, 302-03 and another In re Julie Anne,780 N.E.2d 635, 640-41 and another Poyck v. Bryant, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 26343, 2006 WL 2472649 (Civil Ct., N.Y. Co., Aug. 24, 2006, and from Canada, In JTI-Macdonald et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, [2002] J.Q. no. 5550 (Quebec Superior Court, December 13, 2002, the Court upheld federal restrictions on advertising and promotion, and requirements for large, picture-based health warnings on tobacco packages. In the course of the judgement, Justice Denis stated:

“The evidence shows that second-hand smoke harms everyone, both smokers and non-smokers, and that the children of smokers are particularly affected. This is not an attempt to lay blame. It is a fact.”
and Vaughan et al. v. Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 8, 2003, court file 252/03)
I could go on these kinds of cases have occurred pretty much in every western industrialized country, so really the point is that the only hoax here (other than your comments harely) is the one that was put out by tobacco companies for decades where they systematically lied to cover up the known dangers of smoking, as held in a court of law, meaning it is a FACT JACK. See it here, at
May 12, 2014, 8:49 pm
harleyrider1978 from Anywhere but here says:
How odd any court might state that wheres the evidence as it certainly wasn't in the Mctear case nor even in the Kessler case suing tobacco companies for lying when theres not one shred of proof to any of the claims made! NOT ONE!

7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.

"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
May 12, 2014, 10:09 pm
harleyrider1978 from Anywhere but here says:
From your Indiana court case:

If you look at case law and national precedent on this, no local ordinance, city or state or countrywide, has been overturned in the U.S. in over a decade — and not one law overturned by a court in Indiana.

Evansville's Smoking Ban Overturned by Indiana Supreme Court

The Indiana State Supreme Court has overturned the Smokefree ordinance in Evansville.

Indiana Supreme Court strikes down Evansville smoking ban ...

Feb 11, 2014 · Indiana Supreme Court strikes down Evansville smoking ban. ... Indiana Supreme Court justices heard arguments in the case in October. Previously, ...
May 12, 2014, 10:12 pm
harleyrider1978 from Anywhere but here says:
A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA'S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :


''EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.''

The EPA fought to have Osteen's decision overturned on technical grounds, ignoring the multitude of facts in the decision. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen's court did not have jurisdiction. In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism in the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

Although the anti-smoker movement was already established, this report was used, and continues to be used, to bolster their claim that SHS is a killer.
May 12, 2014, 10:13 pm
harleyrider1978 from from anywhere but here says:
Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
one risk factor, including social factors.

Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
to epidemiology.”

But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
it was public health that mattered!

we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Slutz and Nutz Implant
Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
lives that selective blindness has caused!
May 12, 2014, 10:16 pm
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
Jay did you get that!

No end point studies to disease outcomes not one!

Epidemiologists/statistical manipulators of perpetual lifestyle junk science!

As yet nobody in the world has reported a single death to second hand smoke much less a death to direct smoking! It doesn't exist anywhere and they cant prove any of it!

The effects they made up on second hand smoke were all Physiological changes that anybody gets from eating to running to going into heat or the cold!

Its been a fun ride but the rides over and the junk science has been exposed for what it is! JUNK POLITICALLY BASED PROHIBITION!
May 12, 2014, 10:19 pm
Jay from Nyc says:
Talking alot amd saying nothing, go back to your xfiles dvds harley. Smoking kills 400,000 people a year.
May 13, 2014, 6:07 am
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.

Here's my all-time favorite "scientific" study of the the anti-smoking campaign: "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths," Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute's wesbite, This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.
May 13, 2014, 7:17 am
ty from pps says:
This guy is amazing. You gotta love adorable nutjobs like Mr. HarleyRider.
May 13, 2014, 12:01 pm
Kin_Free from United Kingdom says:
Some facts that the tobacco CONTROL industry don’t want the people to know about, but that should be of massive importance to lawmakers and anyone who values tolerance, freedom, truth and impartiality;

In the last 60 years or so, smoking prevalence has reduced by roughly half in the USA but Lung cancer cases continue to rise.

Lung and Bronchus cancers in USA ( American Cancer Society; 2010);
NEW Cases;
2000: - 164,100
2008: - 215,020
Increase - 31% in only EIGHT years.
(US population increased by 8% over the same period)

“80% of new lung cancers are now diagnosed in NON smokers in USA” (Dr L Eldridge; cancer specialist; 2012)

The above historic Lung and Bronchus figures, from the American Cancer Society, that are invaluable for comparison purposes and contradict anti-smoker rhetoric, have been removed from their website and replaced by ‘adjusted’ statistics in an impressive looking graph that claims lung cancer (mortality) has been reducing since 1990. This graph is almost identical to Russia and Ukraine showing similar reductions, BUT there, smoking continues to increase, with some of the highest smoking rates in the world;

Male smoking rate;
USA; around 25% (or less)
China; around 60%

All cancers male (age adjusted);
USA - 407 per 100,000
China - 205 per 100,000
(The Burden of cancer in Asia; Pfizer 2008)
ie. The USA has less than HALF the male smoking rate of China, but DOUBLE the cancer rate, and China has only 2/3s the lung cancer rate of USA!

ACS now state in 2014, that New cases of lung cancer (male & Female) amount to 224,210. So
L Cancers continue to increase but at a reducing rate. This probably reflects the fact that the reduction in smokers and quitters has stalled since smoke bans, which began in earnest around 2006/7, were forced upon the public.

The generation-long anti-smoker campaign has failed to prevent ANY ill health, in fact it could be argued that it has CAUSED far more. No wonder anti-smoker mercenaries are flapping and squealing as they see the end of their gravy train rapidly approaching and the probability of having to account for their mendacity.
May 13, 2014, 12:14 pm
DC from PARK SLOP says:
A dullard my my big words for a little brain typical response from a yuppie loving hipster. Why do i even bother wah wah wah thats all you hear from you people
May 13, 2014, 1:59 pm
jay from nyc says:
ummm no China has lower cancer because they are not sitting around all day eating processed food, glurping down soft drinks, getting obese and getting no exercise, NOT because they smoke more. That is the dumbest post I have ever seen on this board. Moreover all cancers are higher in more developed coutries than less developed countries. Part of the reason, other than horrible western diet, is that in less developed they simply die younger from infectious diseases, war, lack of occupational safety, and other things associated with poverty and don't live long enough to get cancer. Its very convenience that you also ignore that while you essentially argue that the stats have been cherry picked. Some people would call that kind of thing ironic, other would call it a lie.
Harley, 90% of lung cancer cases occur in smokers or former smokers. That is an amazingly high correlation.
The WHO claims 22% of all cancer deaths world wide were tobacco, and 71 % of lung cancer deaths were from tobacco world wide and that tobacco is the single highest factor across the entire world that causes cancer, not just lung cancer but cancer in general.
IN addition, there are a number of other things you conveniently over look harley, smoking gives you more than lung cancer, it gives you strokes, heart attacks, diabetes, and in fact harms every single organ in the body, including making males not be able to get it up, and increases the risk of birth defects, it harms unborn fetuses in women, i who smoke, it causes blindness and brittle bones and arthritis as well hildren exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of SIDS, ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless.
So to sum up, you aruge that it is all a poltcal lie in teh U.S. and yet in pretty much most of the coutnires of teh world they all have conducted their own research and concluded that smoking kills. Yet you somehow think that you know more than the entire rest of the planet.
Tell me Harly, how many peer reviewed articles have you published on the subject in generally accepted scientific or medical journals? Any Harley?
How many double blind trials with a statistically meaningful segment of various populations with a control group in place have you over seen and manged and reported on Harley? Any?
What is your educational background Harley, are you a doctor do you have an advanced degree in one of the hard sciences from a reputable school? Anything Harley? Or are you going back to you xfiles dvds now?
May 13, 2014, 8:13 pm
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
90% ehh! all those occur in the 75-85 age bracket not in the younger generations. The amount of smokers that get LC are only about 2-6% of life long smoking not much of a correlation when you look at it that way!

Yet they cant prove a single claim of disease via end points now can they. Your smoking related theory flys out the door knowing full well they started calling old age disease smoking related in the 1950s when the anti-smoking movement started gaining speed again after all being repealed and forgoton in 1917-1923. When 43 states repealed their statewide bans.

Sids is caused by low serotonin levels in babies not tobacco smoke!

Study: Babies’ low serotonin levels cause SIDS – – Similar
You 1'd this publicly. Undo
Feb 2, 2010 – Sudden infant death syndrome researchers say low serotonin may be what prevents infants from waking up when they inhale too much carbon …
May 13, 2014, 9:23 pm
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:

Yes...the 1992/93 EPA report on second hand smoke was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge's ruling doesn't stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.

Here's some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:

2006 Surgeon General's Report (excerpts)

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally.....

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.


If you actually read the surgeon generals report it used mostly "The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship" and even then if you read page 21 they admit that the use of meta-analysis on observational studies is not a widely accepted and controversial practice and yet they do it anyway.
May 13, 2014, 9:24 pm
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
So to sum up, you aruge that it is all a poltcal lie in teh U.S. and yet in pretty much most of the coutnires of teh world they all have conducted their own research and concluded that smoking kills.

They all just ran out at the same time and conducted all their own research,ya right they did just that! BS

The WHO world health organization basically forced all countries to sign the FCTC world anti-tobacco treaty or lose world bank and IMF loans if they didn't.

In fact no IMF bail outs would be given unless first the country requesting such bailout had in place a smoking ban according to the edicts of the FCTC!

The junks science was forcibly sumped on the countries and said here this is what you will justify the bans on!

90% of all the junk science originates in CALIFORNIA! Ever here of Glantz et al..........the little mechanical engineer and all his junk science shs studies............heart attacks in 30 minutes sounf familiar or the thridhand smoke tripe or the butts in water pollution junk studies!
May 13, 2014, 9:32 pm
jay from nyc says:
again harley, how many peer reviewed articles have you authored that were published in medical or scientific journals Since you did not answer i guess that answer is zero.
How many double blind studies did you run? Again you did not answer so I guess the answer is zero.
What is you educational background, do you have an advanced degree in a hard science area? Again you did not answer so I guess you have no advanced degrees or education.
So to sum up, zero is pretty much the sum of what any of your posts are worth.
I will continue to listen to people who are scientists who have studies and have proven they have brains and have conducted scientific research pretty much all of whom have concluded through the scientific method that smoking kills, rather than someone who has done none of those things.
SO Harely just wondering are you also a member of the flat earth society, maybe you are still mad about the way the whole Galileo thing worked out? Are you a Luddite and Holocaust denier as well? Inspired by the Unabomber maybe? Where are you on the whole existence of gravity debate?
May 13, 2014, 9:44 pm
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:

You are the flat earth believer here!

Climate change

second hand smoke

3rd hand smoke

1st hand smoke

No proof to back up any of those claims none!

Its junk science on its head,Insanity bundled up to look oh so real and no names of the claimed dead not even an address..............

FCTC GAG ORDERS TO KEEP THE PEOPLE QUIET and have no debate the same as banning commenters............

fctc gag order guidelines

11. The broad array of strategies and tactics used
by the tobacco industry to interfere with
the setting and implementing of tobacco control mea
sures, such as those that Parties to the
Convention are required to implement, is documented
by a vast body of evidence. The
measures recommended in these guidelines aim at pro
tecting against interference not only by
the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by o
rganizations and individuals that work to
further the interests of the tobacco industry.
12. While the measures recommended in these guideli
nes should be applied by Parties as
broadly as necessary, in order best to achieve the
objectives of Article 5.3 of the Convention,
Parties are strongly urged to implement measures be
yond those recommended in these
guidelines when adapting them to their specific cir
May 14, 2014, 8:17 am
ty from pps says:
WOW! Just wow.... sad really. I wonder if HarleyRider has children.
May 14, 2014, 9:03 am
Kin_Free from United Kingdom says:
Jay quote; “ummm no China has lower cancer because they are not sitting around all day eating processed food, glurping down soft drinks, getting obese and getting no exercise, NOT because they smoke more … they simply die younger from infectious diseases (etc.)… don't live long enough to get cancer.” but but but - smoking causes everything doesn’t it - according to you guys? You list some of them too - i.e. the snake oil salesman patter?

You are effectively agreeing that smoking does not cause all those illnesses your masters claim, except when they are old (while trying to deny it)! Cancers are diet related, exercise related and AGE related - NOT smoke related eh? I concur to a degree, particularly with ‘age related’ but we only started to hear about the other lifestyle ‘causes’ when it was realised that smoking had reduced but cancers continued to increase - so a new cause(s) was needed to explain the shortfall. No mention of course about causes external to the individual though eh jay? Causes such as industrial/corporate pollution eg. asbestos, nuclear or chemical, where HARD science can actually prove them to be causes, unlike tobacco smoke where that proof has NEVER been found, despite years of trying!

Indeed, generally speaking, developing countries do have less cancer and generally do smoke far more than say USA, but what about say Japan where life expectancy is greater than USA? They too smoke far more - Males; Japan 44% : USA 26% BUT have far less cancers too;
eg Male (per each 100,000);
All cancers; USA 407: Japan 260.
Lung and Bronchus cancers; USA 62 : Japan 39. (both less than two thirds that of USA)
(burden of cancer in asia 2008)

Interesting that you can see the relevance of Luddites who refused to accept that times change - just like present day anti-smoker drones hanging on to C20th 'scientific correlations', despite the fact that those correlations are now INVERSE ones between smoking and ill health. Just as relevant too is Galileo and his struggle with the dogmatic ‘experts’ of his time, relating it correctly to present day anti-smoker dogma and its pseudo religious agenda. All the experts all over the world agree that the earth is the centre of the universe -Ha!- And we are supposed to be living in our new, modern, enlightened world!
May 14, 2014, 11:29 am
Jay from Nyc says:
Again harley how many studies have yoh condutex, how many peer reveiwed articles have you had published and what advanced sciene degree do you have? You keep refusing to answer thise questions, now why is that? Is it because the answer is zero? Why is it that you despite apparenrly having ZERO qualifications think that you know more than all the researchers on the planet xombined who have studied this issue for decades and who have concluded smoking KILLS? Oh and Harley what about on todays story in cnn about child labor used on u.s. tobacco farms and how they get accute
nicotine poisiong just from being in the
tobacco fields
May 14, 2014, 12:04 pm
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
You talking about family farms,ya how about that its own set of Labor laws. As far as nicotine poisoning it sure isn't happening today its not even stripping time yet much less harvest time. BTW you get use to the sap from tobacco plants real quick. Ive yet to see anyone poisoned by nicotine and Ive been raising tobacco for over 20 years off and on.

Also you might note those kids are likely the kids of probably Illegals. Id bet they don't say a word about their status either.

You know Al Gore still raises about 100,000 pounds of tobacco a year and uses illegals to crop it for him~ Carthage Tenn doesn't like to talk about it much!

If the kids get nicotine so called poisoning the worse is usually just a fast heart rate and thatd be it~
May 14, 2014, 4:32 pm
Kin_Free from United Kingdom says:
You talking to me in that last comment jay? Struggling eh? Can’t you differentiate between totally different writing styles? Are you, like ty, unable to compute all this information that contradicts your conditioning so the only response is ‘WOW’, didn’t know about that, refuse to believe that so I’ll just make some dismissive sarcastic remark’?

Not that it matters a jot other than to ascertain your tobacco CONTROL affiliations, but what peer reviewed articles have YOU authored jay, more importantly, who paid for them? Are you prepared to deem yourself an ‘expert’, or admit that you are a gullible sheep, or an indoctrinated tobacco CONTROL drone paid to not understand and blinded by pseudo science? (most vocal anti-smokers are the latter)

The thing about this is that you don’t need to be a scientist or other ‘expert’ when it comes to anti-smoker propaganda and mendacious rhetoric, you only need common sense, the ability to use rational thinking and the will to question.

Anti-smoker ‘science’ is full of easily identified contradictions, the only problem is whether the indoctrinated brain can peep over that tobacco CONTROL fabricated mental wall to see them. Eg Anti-smoker ‘science’ tells you that passive smoke, has an increased relative risk of around 19% and kills thousands - yet you will not hear of how many have died from say eating eggs that are claimed by science to have an increased lung cancer relative risk of 53% - why? (don’t worry, eggs are virtually harmless too). There are loads more contradictions - just look!

What about child labour on tobacco farms?
May 14, 2014, 5:05 pm
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
Im still waiting Jay for that list of the thousands of dead to SHS or even to direct smoking with 400,000 it should be real easy and since they added another 80,000 bodies to the list yearly perhaps those new deaths can provide a few names! Or do you just want to admit its all created deaths out of thin air on the SAMMEC computer the government uses from risk assessment junk studies................BTW who cares if kids crop tobacco its good for them to work!
May 14, 2014, 5:51 pm
jay from nyc says:
come on harley answer the questions why are you avoiding them. You claim to know more than all the other scientists on the planet and yet you can not offer a single shred of credentials that demonstrates that. Now why is that? Could it be that you are just WRONG?!!!?
and Kin, no I am just ignoring you as you are the dumber of dumb and dumber.
here is the link to the CCN artilce.
May 14, 2014, 6:32 pm
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
Jay why are you avoiding the answer!

Name the so called dead..................its easy right!

Come on it so easy anyone without a degree should be able to do it right!

Or does your silence simply state the obvious there are no deaths and never were!

Disease causation cannot be established nor Proven! That's what 60 years and longer of anti-tobacco junk science has proven NOTHING!
May 14, 2014, 7:30 pm
jay from nyc says:
harley you claim to know more than all the scientist in the world and offer nothing but babble to back that up. You have apparently conducted no research have no peer reviewed articles published and not even a degree in science, In short you have produced NOTHING that demonstrates that all of the scientist in the world are wrong and that you alone are somehow magically correct. Only a fool would agree with you.
You go on and around that basic fact and continue saying name the dead its easy. Let me put this in a simple way that you will get, if you are on the subway and then come up from underground and the sky is dark with storm clouds and the ground is wet, the cars have water on them, the windows on the buildings have drops of water on them, (and there are no emergency repair trucks for a broken water main) you can conclude it just rained.
Same thing with smoking. If 90 percent of all lung cancer occurs in smokers, and it does, and 10% only occurs in non smokers, its totally obvious that smoking causes cancer. If you don't smoke, your chances of getting lung cancer are very very very very low.
In a 2006 European study, the risk of developing lung cancer was 0.2% for men who never smoked (0.4% for women) That is LESS than 1%. That number goes way up to 24.4% for male “heavy smokers” defined as smoking more than 5 cigarettes per day (18.5% for women)
For many years we knew that Aprin worked, we just did not understand how, Its only very recently that we finally figured out how it works. There are many such examples in the world, and just because we have not figured out the exact mechanism yet does not mean that we were also not able to determine that it rained. (although I suppose you would probably argue it was an alien space ship that went over and an alien leaned over the side and urinated all over the place and it also turns out that aliens pee water.)
You want proof that smoking demonstrably killed some one, anyone and to name the dead, basically what you are asking for is the equivalent of not just 1 billion eye witnesses to a murder, but you want video, you want a confession, you want dna, you want pictures, you want tissue samples, you want blood samples, you want the murder weapon, you want the information on where the weapon was manufactured, and who actually made the weapon, who designed the weapon, where the raw materials for the weapon came from, who mined those raw materials, the background of those who mined the raw material, the machine used to mine the raw materials, and who made those machines, who designed those machines, who built those machines, what are the background of the people who made those machines, their dna, and you want to know who dug up the information on the people who built the machines and demand their dna as well, and only after that would you consider that a murder actually occurred.
In short, almost none of that is necessary to conclude a murder occurred, and you just do not get it.
In addition, you demand "proof" of a nature that is simply laughable, while offering none of your own. That speaks for itself.
May 14, 2014, 9:10 pm
Speller says:
Hey Brooklyn Paper,

Pretty sure the person you quoted is Marge *Feinberg*, not Feinber.
May 15, 2014, 5:59 am
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
Not enough evidence to link smoking and lung cancer
Dec 7, 2011—A court in Korea has rejected a civil lawsuit filed by the family of a lung cancer victim against the government and KT&G, according to a story by Lee Hyo-sik for the Korea Times.

The Seoul Central District Court dismissed the claim by the family of a former police officer who died of lung cancer that the cigarette manufacturer was to blame for the disease.

It cited a lack of evidence that the disease was directly caused by smoking.

And it said there wasn’t enough evidence that the cigarette manufacturer intentionally withheld from smokers information about tobacco’s adverse effects on human health.

‘There isn’t enough evidence proving that serious defects exist in the design and manufacturing of cigarette products,’ the court said.
May 15, 2014, 8:37 am
jay from nyc says:
again Harley is you are so smart and everyone else is so dumb where is the study that yo conducted that was double blind with a control group with results taht got published and peer reviewed?
Oh thats right you didn't do any of that, and yet you want us to ignore the thousands of studies done around the world that show you are the one who is wrong. Ummm no thanks.
May 15, 2014, 5:55 pm
Harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
Well since they keep taking down my posts I guess theres nothing further to be said. Everything I posted came from PHD's and scientists!
May 17, 2014, 8:27 am
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
Michael R. Fox.
Nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor.
- Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxins or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels.
May 17, 2014, 8:56 am
harleyrider1978 from anywhere but here says:
They have no idea what causes cancer even the things they call carcinogens they have no proof they do. Even with so called HPV they have no proof it causes cancer. The only thing ever proven to actually cause cell disruption and cancer is high dose radiation.

With 98% of smokers never developing LC to begin with its a far cry from proof that smoking causes anything especially LC. Then when we check the ages at which that type cancer appears its in the 75-85 year old bracket at 500-100,000 population.

LC is a rare disease even among lifetime heavy smokers and its why a judge would not accept statistical risk studies as proof of causation and rightly so!

To make a claim and then demand payoffs for weak to no evidence is criminal on its face value.

We must simply ask when did not requiring direct end point proof disappear from our culture and science!

It literally began in the 1950s with the DOLL/HILL Hospital study!
May 17, 2014, 9:06 am
harleyrider from anywhere but NYC says:
Perhaps you would rather just outlaw yourselves and all the other human carcinogen machines from even existing! Or the New Building VOC's that release constantly in new buildings that also can create a cancer risk. He should also want to ban Cooking,Campfires, Industrial output, Barbecuing,Breathing,having indoor plants that release constant Isoprene! You see no matter the contempt and daily scares these folks toss out you will never escape natural elements and chemicals such as whats in tobacco smoke or the normal everyday air we all breathe and exhale. We are all sources of the same thing these prohibitionists are trying to outlaw and criminalize!

NIH report on carcinogens

If you want to learn about which chemicals cause cancer, or just want to feel more paranoid about getting cancer, check out the 2012 NIH report on carcinogens.

One of the more exciting findings is that human beings themselves are possible carcinogens, by virtue of their natural emissions of isoprene:

Isoprene is formed endogenously in humans at a rate of 0.15 µmol/kg
of body weight per hour, equivalent to approximately 2 to 4 mg/kg per
day (Taalman 1996), and is the major hydrocarbon in human breath
(accounting for up to 70% of exhaled hydrocarbons)

Don’t breathe on me!

Natural occurrences[edit]

Isoprene is produced and emitted by many species of trees into the atmosphere (major producers are oaks, poplars, eucalyptus, and some legumes). The yearly production of isoprene emissions by vegetation is around 600 million tonnes, with half that coming from tropical broadleaf trees and the remainder coming from shrubs.[1] This is about equivalent to methane emission into the atmosphere and accounts for ~1/3 of all hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere.
May 22, 2014, 3:53 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: