What is the Chartered Institute of Enviromental Health?

What is it? Does anyone know? Generally speaking, such institutes set examimation questions, and things like that. You can be a member of such an institute, if you like. A long time ago, I was a member of The Institute of Bankers, or whatever it was called. I could officially put the letter AIB after my name, just like MD or MP and such. Not that I ever did – there was no point because all that the letters stood for was ‘Associate of the Institute of Bankers’. It might just well have stood for ‘Associate of the Institute of Bonkers’, in every sense. It had no power at all, apart from setting the banking exams and marking the papers. It did not represent the employer or the employee of a bank. The same applies to a lot of these institutes. Here’s what the entry in Wikipedia says:

“The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) is a professional membership body, dedicated to enhancing environmental health and promoting the highest possible standards in the training and education of environmental health professionals in order to benefit people’s health and well-being.”

So it is a body established to provide training. But what does that phrase ‘dedicated to enhancing environmental health’ mean? How does that institute ‘enhance’ anything? What does ‘enhance’ in this context mean? Does it mean ‘improve’ environmental health? Erm… Hang on. The environment is neither healthy nor unhealthy – only living things can be healthy or unhealthy.

Again and again, we see this distortion of the English language. I guess that the word ‘enhance’ is slightly different from the word ‘improve’. There is an implication of added value, which need not be the case with ‘improve’. You could ‘improve’ the game of soccer, perhaps, by changing the rules a bit, but you would not have ‘enhanced’ the game. On the other hand, if the salary for a job is increased, you could reasonably say that the value of that job has been ‘enhanced’.

But perhaps that is just semantics. Or maybe it is not. Whoever wrote the above Wiki entry was not really thinking, was he/she? And what about the last phrase, ‘in order to benefit people’s health and well-being’. There, we have the word ‘benefit’ being used in place of the more accurate word ‘improve’. The writer would have us believe that ‘enhance’ means the same thing as ‘benefit’.

That’s what happens when the charlatans of tobacco control infiltrate institutions and associations. They start messing about with the purposes of those institutions and associations.

So what do we really see when the above institution issues a declaration concerning smoking in the presence of children, but only in play areas and parks, etc? We see that smoking in such places has nothing whatsoever to do with the proper purpose of that institution. Smoking in such places is a political matter and not a matter for an organisation which sets exam questions and organises training sessions.

And is that now a HUGE, HUGE problem? What is the British Medical Association FOR? It is to represent doctors – it is the equivalent of a trade union, except that doctors have to have a real trade union to actually do the job that the BMA is supposed to do. The Royal Society of Physicians is similar to the Environemental Health institute – it sets exams and provides some training material. Neither of them should have any political reach. Somehow, Tobacco Control took control of those institutions some time ago. They now form part of the Tobacco Control Industry.

The whole menagerie would seem to be inexpensive when compared with the direct costs of ASH ET AL due to direct government control. That is true, because it is the members of those institutions who are paying the costs. How many university professors and doctors are ’employed’ by the Tobacco Control Industry but paid by students, doctors, environmental health professional, nurses, teachers, local goverment officers, etc, etc. As well as taxpayers?

The Chief Executive Officer of the CIEH is Anne Godfrey. What terms of her job description entitle her, or demand of her, that she issues statements about the health effects of what children SEE? Her organisation is supposed to be about training environmental health officers and setting and marking exams. It is not a political organ.

The Brexit vote should be the start of a new era. Organisations like the EU, the UN, WHO and all the rest are hopelessly corrupt. Why have our politicians gone along with such corruption for so long? Does that not reflect upon the honesty of our own ‘political representatives’? The Tobacco Control Industry even penetrated the Royal Society – the supposed epitomy of objective scientific enquiry. It really is astonishing. What happened? Did Zealots target these institututions deliberately, in the sense of ‘the long march through the institutions’, or was it an accident that so many of the officers were amenable to the suggestions of The Tobacco Control Industry? The TCI is going to have a grand meeting of Official Zealots in Kazacstan, or Indostan, or Blatherstan, or Murderstan, or Executionstan, or Dictatorstan, or some such horrific place. No doubt the Islamic laws will be suspended for the duration of the meeting, apart from any journalists who might sneak into the meeting. They will have their hands tied behind their backs and be strung up by the neck on a handy crane to amuse the public with their shakings and tremblings.

I do not understand politicians. I get the impression that if one of them got a blocked drain at his home, he would blame it on anyone else except his wife and daughters bunging their sanitary towels into the toilet. In general terms, that means that they cannot see the wood for the trees. The see one effect as having only one cause, and they legislate accordingly.

Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ used information provided by doctors to specify that smoking caused LC, heart attacks, etc. But, at the time of the beginning of the study, those doctors had been subjected to the horrors of two massive world wars, the horrors of atmospheric polution via smoke from industrial factory chimneys (smogs), the world-wide effects of atom bomb testing. And yet no attempt was made to control for these things. And yet, there was a lot of evidence that smokers in rural areas and windy areas, did not suffer such dire consequences of smoking.

I don’t think that Doll cherry-picked evidence. He was not a statistician. He showed a correlation, but not a causation. The correlation was very strong, but there was no evidence whatsoever of causation. There still is not. No ‘scientist’ has produced scientific evidence that inhaling tobacco smoke actually causes LC, or any other ailment.

And so we come back to the Environmental Health Institute.

They real problem is that anyone gives a shit about what these blatherers say.

 

7 Responses to “What is the Chartered Institute of Enviromental Health?”

  1. Dr Evil Says:

    Well, the cadaver I dissected in med school died from lung cancer. His lungs were black. I saw them and the cancer had eroded his spine. I saw that. The lungs evolved to exchange oxygen with the atmosphere. They did not evolve to take in particulates nor smoke in general. I’m not saying he was a smoker because prior to the clean air act coal fires et al polluted the atmosphere big time. but he inhaled particulates and smoke as I could clearly see. Smoking tobacco certainly causes COPD and emphysema. There are carcinogens in tobacco smoke and car exhausts. Take your pick. Smoking tobacco is simply crazy.

    • garyk30 Says:

      Dear Doctor,
      One thing that Doll’s Doctor Study did show was this:
      Smokers and never- smokers have the same, about 85%, probability of dying from one of the diseases said to be ’caused’ by smoking.

      It also showed that neversmokers are only 1.03 times more likely to NOT die from lung cancer than are smokers.

      That is a meaningless difference.

    • nisakiman Says:

      Yes, if he died of lung cancer, his lungs would have been black. That is what happens to cancerous lungs. However, had your cadaver died of something else, even if he had been a two pack a day smoker for fifty years, his lungs would not have been black, because smoking does not blacken the lungs. The only external cause of blackening of the lungs is long term exposure to coal dust, that is to say, only coal miners would display such discolouration, regardless of whether or not they were smokers. It can happen to a lesser degree in city dwellers who are subject to industrial and vehicular pollution, but again, their smoking status has no bearing on it.

      “Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.”

      Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.”

      The whole question was summed up well by Dr. Irving Zeidman, Professor of Pathology at the University of Pennsylvania, when he was asked in Congress whether it was possible to tell which of two lungs was the lung of a smoker. He said: “I would estimate that of a thousand pathologists in this country 998 would say, ‘I could not tell,’ and the other two would say, ‘I could tell,’ and those two who could tell either had some divine intuition or were not telling the truth.”
      http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/pdf/075/00007569.pdf

      • junican Says:

        Dr Evil has been around for some time. Personally, I think that he is Tricky Dicky D.
        But for the purposes of readers who do not know otherwise, here is the link to Frank Smith’s take on Black Lung:

        https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-black-lung-lie/

        But Nisak above has alreay cleared the matter up.

        As regards COPD, Emphysema is not separate from COPD. It is included in COPD. In the Doctors Study, only about 400 deaths among doctors numbering 25,000 deaths occurred as a result of COPD.

    • nisakiman Says:

      Interesting tidbit in the full paper is that COPD deaths were lower in places with higher smoking rates. That’s not surprising since tobacco smoke is potent anti-inflammatory medicine and COPD is a result of long term chronic inflammation (except for a rare genetically caused emphysema). The same protective effect of smoking is observed even in developed countries for people working in harsh conditions, such as miners, metal workers, etc. Here is a quote from the full paper:
      “Table 2 also shows the results of regressing mortality rates from COPD against national smoking rates.
      Coefficients are significantly negative for both age groups and both sexes. When this analysis was repeated using the local estimates of mean cumulative pack years smoked by the whole population in the 22 BOLD sites there was also a significant negative association in all groups with
      _more smoking_ being associated with a _lower_ national mortality rate for COPD (table 2). ”

      http://thorax.bmj.com/…/12/18/thoraxjnl-2013-204460.full

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    I fail to see why Dr Evil is posting on this site which is surely for those of us who enjoy smoking quality tobacco !?

    • junican Says:

      Like I said – ‘Tricky Dicky’. But anyone is invited to comment. I shall not expunge such comments unless they are way off topic. That is my measure – stay on topic, because this is my site. But that does not mean that commenters cannot introduce other topics, if those topics are ‘breaking news’ and such. What I detest is anti-tobacco blather.
      I get little of it, thankfully.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: