Council may take children from smokers
One Scotland’s biggest local authorities is threatening to remove foster children from smokers. New rules introduced by Dundee city council will ban smokers from adopting and fostering children under the age of five unless they agree to keep their homes smoke free. Smokers who already have foster children under five in their care face having them removed if they smoke at home.
Source: Sunday Times Scotland (12 March 2006)
posted by Simon Clark @ 18:51
5 comments
5 Comments:
This is no surprise, given that this is exactly the kind of thing being promoted by the US version of ASH. It seems like the Dundee councillors are letting their little bit of power fuel their clearly overblown sense of self-importance, massively to impose their vile attitudes on law-abiding citizens.
Once again it highlights the need to destroy the foundation of lies upon which the whole edifice of 'passive smoking kills' is built. There is no place for any more mealy mouthed descriptions such as 'unproven', 'disputed', 'exaggerated' etc. A lie is a lie is a lie, and that's all there is to it.
Perhaps Forest should circulate to all of their media contacts the summary report of the study undertaken by the World Health Organisation between 1990-1997 which was intended to be the definitive proof of the dangers of passive smoking (ETS). This is the one that WHO tried to bury as, not only did it find no statistically significant relationship (ie NO relationship) between second-hand smoke and lung cancer in spousal and workplace non-smokers, but the only significant statistic was that which demonstrated that children of smokers appeared to have a reduced level of lung cancer in adulthood. In other words, passive smoking, according to WHO's study, passive smoking has a beneficial, protective effect on children.
(Study summary is available at: http://www.data-yard.net/2/12/1440.pdf
A good commentary by Forces International can be found at: http://www.forces.org/evidence/
who/files/synops1.htm)
OK, I don't personally believe that this 'protective ETS' syndrome is reality, although its obvious possibility should argue for further studies to be carried out.
However, as a statistician, I would give this result as much credence as the other 5% of ETS studies that show any statistically significant increase in risk to passive smokers and which are the ones quoted by the anti-smokers as 'incontrovertible proof', 'undeniable', 'fact' etc.
Oh, and one shouldn't forget that using the normal rules of statistical inference, significant results will be obtained in 5% of experiments purely by chance.
Statistical methods have built-in controls (measures of 'significance') to try and avoid the misinterpretation of chance findings. Put simply, if your use of statistical methods to test your hypothesis does not achieve the accepted level of significance, your hypothesis is rejected. To then proceed to claim that your findings are 'conclusive proof' etc. is an abuse of mathematics and nothing more than scientific fraud.
This is the fraud which is behind the lies which are leading to the self-important busybodies taking away our liberties.
Fight it!
Last year we published and distributed to politicians, journalists and broadcasters two reports demonstrating the fraudulent nature of the passive smoking argument.
'Prejudice & Propaganda: The Truth About Passive Smoking is a comprehensive, 56-page report that includes a section which systematically lists 147 studies on the subject and demonstrates how (and why) the evidence is "not statistically significant".
'Smoking Out The Truth: A Challenge to the Chief Medical Officer' by FOREST president Lord Harris of High Cross (founding director of the Institute of Economic Affairs) challenged the CMO to produce evidence to support his claim that hundreds of workers die each year from passive smoking.
Needless to say, despite all our efforts (including a press conference at the House of Lords to launch the Harris booklet) both reports were largely ignored.
Frankly, this makes us even more determined to fight our corner to the bitter end. Based on current evidence, what is being said about the harmful effects of passive smoking is a scandal and we have no intention of walking away from what can only be described as a shameful abuse of science.
PS. Copies of both reports can be found on http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page258.asp - to download click on the images on the right hand column.
Thanks for the feedback, Forest. I am well aware of the good work you have done and continue to do. Indeed I have printed both of your quoted reports and given copies to a couple of NHS 'smoking cessation' people.
My reason for singling out this particular (WHO) study is that it is probably the most germane to the particular thread topic, in that it found a statistically significant embarrassment for the 'anti-smoking coalition' in demonstrating that passive smoking is "good for the kids"!
Just imagine, if you adopted the morals of the sewer, like, say, ASH, you would be perfectly justified in putting out a press release with a nice snazzy headline like:
"WHO REPORT PROVES PASSIVE SMOKING IS GOOD FOR CHILDREN";
- and then follow up the logic in the same way that ASH (USA version) are doing in stating that "DUNDEE COUNCILLORS ARE GUILTY OF CHILD ABUSE" - because they want to deny them the beneficial effects of living with smoking foster parents!
Squalid tactics, I know, but exactly the same as those employed by anti-smoking hysterics.
And wouldn't it be fun watching them squirm as they try to argue why it cannot possibly be true!
Just a thought to brighten up a dark, cold winter evening. ;)
I believe, in the account I read, that this idea was denounced by both the British Association for Adoption and Fostering and Barnardo’s Scotland.
I also noticed a new catch phrase "passive smoking-related disorders" which supposedly affects 17,000 kids under 5? What would constitute a passive smoking disorder anyway? Anything from burning themselves with matches to everything breathing related like croup etc.
I guess you could even count kids overdosing on nicotine gum in that number, especially if you are not being asked where you got your figures from.
politicians take note, you are there to serve not to rule.
Yours.
Pete.
I believe bans will encourage young smokers, it's like a red rag to a bull. I believe in telling children the truth not lies. Filling children with some of the hatred I have seen printed lately is far from HEALTHY. As for the idea of Dundee council removing foster children from smokers is disgusting. I came from a toubled home and the last thing on my mind was my parents smoking. I am nearly fifty and my bad childhood memories stay with me. I smoke and have many non smoking friends who do not judge me or believe in all the propaganda, or scaremongering that is put on the TV, I am also not paranoid, if I was well I would starve as everthing is bad for you. There should have been a choice. I would not sell my soul or my childrens. Using children to police parents is disgusting. Was the statement made suggesting smokers make bad parents!!! I bl**dy hope not.
Post a Comment
<< Home