Liberal Vision

New study shows #e-cig vapour as good as clean air

Due to pressure of time, because it’s important, and because no main stream media seems to have reported the findings as we publish, we are “Doing a BBC”  [as we call it] by simply printing a press release verbatim. Well, if it is good enough for the BBC eh?

We will update as more info/critical observations/analysis becomes available.

Released by British American Tobacco 14th July 2015:

Human respiratory tissue test reveals e-cigarette vapour
produced similar result as air

Six hours of exposure to cigarette smoke resulted in near-complete cell death, but the same exposure to e-cigarette vapour did not affect tissue viability.

14 July 2015, Southampton, UK.  e-cigarette vapour from two different types of e-cigarette had no cytotoxic impact on human airway tissue, according to new research published in In Vitro Toxicology DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2015.05.018.

Scientists at British American Tobacco and MatTek Corporation used a unique combination of tests to investigate the potential adverse effects of e-cigarette vapour on airway tissue compared with cigarette smoke. ‘By employing a combination of a smoking robot and a lab-based test using respiratory tissue, it was possible to demonstrate the ability to induce and measure aerosol irritancy and to show that the different e-cigarette aerosols used in this study have no cytotoxic effect on human airway tissue,’ says spokesperson Dr Marina Murphy.

This new methodology could be used to help develop product standards for these kinds of products in the future.

E-cigarette vapour can contain nicotine, humectants, flavourings and thermal degradation products, so it is important to understand the potential impact on biological systems. Until now, there have been no aerosol studies of potential adverse effects of e-cigarette vapour on in vitro models that so closely mimic the structure, function and exposure of normal human airway tissue.

The researchers combined a commercially available 3D model of respiratory epithelial tissue and the popular VITROCELL smoking robot, an aerosol exposure system, to assess the irritant potential of e-cigarette vapour from two commercially available e-cigarettes on human airway tissue. The results show that, despite hours of aggressive and continuous exposure, the impact of the e-cigarette vapour on the airway tissue is similar to that of air. Furthermore, the study represents an initial move towards socialising and debating potential industrial guidelines.

The airway tissue model – EpiAirway – comprises human tracheal/bronchial epithelial cells that have been cultured to form differentiated layers resembling epithelial tissue of the respiratory tract. The VITROCELL system mimics the exposure when humans inhale by delivering emissions from cigarettes or e-cigarettes or just air to the EpiAirway tissues.

The researchers first tested the biological system with known irritants applied in liquid form. Then they exposed EpiAirway tissues to cigarette smoke or aerosol generated from  two types of commercial e-cigarettes for up to six hours. During that time, cell viability was measured every hour using an established colorimetric test. The amount of particulate mass deposited on the cells’ surface was also quantified (using dosimetry tools) to prove that smoke or vapour had reached the tissue throughout exposure. The longer the time the cells were exposed, the bigger the dose they received in an incremental manner.

The results show that cigarette smoke reduces cell viability to 12% (near complete cell death) after six hours. In contrast, neither of the e-cigarette aerosols showed any significant decrease in cell viability. Despite 6 hours of continuous exposure, the results were similar to those of control cells exposed to only air.  Even with this aggressive exposure, the e-cigarette vapours did not reduce cell viability.

‘Currently there are no standards concerning the in vitro testing of e-cigarette aerosols,’ said Marina Trani, Head of R&D for British American Tobacco’s next generation nicotine products. But, she adds, ‘our protocol could prove very useful in helping the process by which these guidelines might progress.’

This study shows that, in this human airway tissue model, cytotoxicity is unaffected by aerosols from two different types of e-cigarette, but further studies will be needed to compare the  effects of other different commercially available products, formats and formulations.”

Press release ends. But here is the picture:

More #Libdemmery nonsense

Here is the Lib Dem leadership ballot paper -with very clear and totally absurd voting rules clearly printed on it.

Kennedy’s Legacy & The Leadership Election

A difficult article for Liberal Democrats, and unwisely inaccurate to personalise the issue to Kennedy so much, and so soon. But the underlying issues raised are there all the same. Collins, as a project New Labour man is more sympathetic to the Lamb-cause than Farron-project. No surprise there. I’m not entirely sure he gets either right.

Farron will be more left-wing and populist than Clegg. Clearly. I’m not sure it’s correct though to presume that means a return to the Kennedy era. Kennedy’s Party was relatively left-wing because the Labour Party wasn’t. It was populist because it seemed to help win by-elections. It would be difficult to ascribe anything as uncouth as a deliberate strategy those events. Kennedy for example while more left himself, was very happy to sponsor groups and MPs that were not and build the ground for the change that came.

Farron on the other hand has the vision thing. He does seem to know where he’s going and wants the Party to come with him. He wants to lead a revolution not chair factions with a vaguely common purpose.

Whether or not this revolution is actually capable of achieving, let alone wielding power is not clear. Will for example Farron find himself scrapping with a Burnham-led Labour Party for a handful of Guardian readers? heralding another decade of majority rule by a centre-right minority. Or will a few good crises enable him to do to Labour what Labour did to the Liberals? Perhaps both?

Lamb, I agree is more pragmatic, more clear about his comfort with being in Government. More comfortable with compromise and coalitions. He is more classically liberal in the Orange-Book mould. But he’s not offering a grand strategy for a return to power, let alone holding on to it. He has set out his ‘liberal vision’, but one it’s rather hard to see as distinct, other than being less left-wing.

His Leadership campaign so far for example appears to be classic populism. Principally a mental health revolution, and mobilising the suspicion the Party’s significant gay rights lobby has about Farron’s theological views.

The Lamb critique then is not dissimilar from one Collins makes about Kennedy. What do you do if you get there? With ‘if’ very heavily underlined.

Clegg got there and promptly set about imploding. In part due to the internal contradictions of the Party. In part his lazy indifference to doing very much about them. In part due to the difficulty in selling something that amounted to being ‘a bit like the others, just more liberal’. Then switching tack mid-term to being little more than a brake on the ‘nasty Tories’. Trying to run a ‘keep the bastards honest’ pitch works better if you’re not one of the bastards. It doesn’t work at all if you cack-handedly manage to make honesty the antithesis of your personal brand.

Neither Lamb or Farron have that problem, quite the opposite. But the Liberal Democrat Party, after a string of avoidable scandals made much worse by the Liberal Democrat Party, still does. On that issue Farron has a track record of asking questions and leading reform. Lamb of avoiding getting embroiled.

In respect of the full package then, a vision, a sense of the organisation needed to deliver it, underlined by values that are applied consistently, arguably Farron is more the Blairite. Lamb the more Kennedyesque. Neither though will be repeating history. Both are very much their own people better judged in that light, responding to events today, than by comparison to circumstances and Leaders past.

Collins should avoid the temptation to view absolutely every political problem through the narrow prism of his own experience of the Labour Party.

A Memo On Memogate

Malcolm Bruce has commented in a 20 minute Today programme segment on Memogate. This following a long weekend of coverage. I note the following. The Liberal Democrat Party remains quite the most hopeless stewards of their own reputation of any of the major parties. Showing no sign whatsoever of seeing themselves as others see them. Let alone addressing the issues that arise from that. Regardless of the long-term damage it does them collectively.

Memogate itself is relatively simple. Alistair Carmichael, the MP for Orkney and Shetland, and then Scottish Secretary, was made aware (in that capacity) of a civil service memo that suggested the Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP (SNP) had made politically unwise remarks to a French diplomat. Carmichael authorised his special adviser to release the remarks to the media with the intent of causing the SNP political damage during an election campaign. When approached about the matter by the press, he lied about his involvement. A Cabinet leak inquiry followed, in which these facts came to light. It was agreed between the inquiry and Carmichael (no longer a Minister) that he would issue a fulsome apology and forgo his Ministerial severance pay.

Misconduct in public office and dishonesty was then admitted. A not insignificant degree of mitigation and apology was offered. The Ministerial portion of the scandal was settled. To Carmichael’s credit he did not attempt to bluff it out beyond this point.

The matter more generally though has not been settled. Carmichael remains an MP, one whose electoral mandate is self-evidently open to question having won his seat narrowly on a false prospectus about his own character and judgement.

He remains an MP in a political climate that does not tolerate misconduct in public life, and where Recall was a position supported by his Party (however anaemic the eventual legislation). It is perfectly reasonable, in these circumstances for his opponents to call for him to step down and fight a by-election. Putting his redoubtable record of public service to islanders and sincere apology up for public affirmation or not.

The problem is that he would probably lose such an election.

And that is the lens through which the Liberal Democrat Party is looking at the matter. They have only 1 MP left in Scotland, they are decimated, demoralised, and aggrieved, and do not wish to risk losing what it is they have left. They reasonably look at a man who has served them and his constituents well. To whom they owe favours, and have worked hard to support in turn. In short a friend and until this point a huge political asset who has managed to play something of the Prescott role in the Party, supporting an orange-book leadership while holding on to his social liberal principles and canny local campaigning instincts.

That matters internally. A lot.

Consequently the Scottish Liberal Democrat Executive has met, decided there is nothing to see here… it’s all settled… and would the public and SNP mind going away please… and frankly grow up… and learn to forgive people. What! what is their problem! I mean really. It’s not as if they’re purer than the driven snow… look at their lies that they got away with… we all make mistakes… etc.

That is the line.

It is self-serving crap.

The public can see it’s self-serving crap.

It will not help Alistair Carmichael’s reputation or future re-election prospects a jot. Quite the reverse. If not defenestrated by pressure or process, he’s probably out voluntarily or otherwise by 2020. This will not have gone away or been forgotten in 5 years.

As to the Liberal Democrat process… it looks like what it is – a group of Ally’s pally’s gathering together to agree he’s a terrible nice chap and sticking their heads in the sand about the wider implications of the scandal or their own long-term interests.

The BBC shrewdly asked Bruce this morning whether they would regret their approach if they lost MSPs in the 2016 Scottish election. He of coursed ducked the question; but that is what is likely to happen. The Party having already lost seats UK-wise over their casual indifference to matters of integrity and trust, has now started the next election cycle demonstrating it has learnt nothing. Nothing at all.

They could have acted more wisely.

What they could and should have done is take the matter seriously. Alistair Carmichael’s membership should have been suspended. His disreputable conduct properly considered by someone not connected with the tight-knit clan that run his Party machine, and their recommendations taken seriously. That should have taken at least a month and taken some of the oxygen out of the current media frenzy.

We cannot pre-judge, but it is not at all clear such a process would have recommended his expulsion. That disrepute has taken place is admitted. Sanctions to the same are not unipolar. They can be discrete, and a sensible one in this instance might have included a 3-6 month suspension.

That would be proportionate to the offence, demonstrate the Party takes such things seriously, and allow Carmichael to get on with his job, which right now involves a lot of apologising to islanders, in person, and demonstrating all the other reasons why he’s held the seat so long.

If during that suspension the SNP somehow succeed in getting a process going that forces him out, the Liberal Democrat Party would at least have had some moral high ground, having acted properly and seriously. That would count for something for his successor and the Party’s wider prospects in other Scottish elections.

But that opportunity has gone, and it’s heads in the sand and hope time.

In conclusion that after Thorpe, Smith, Rennard, Hancock etc. the Liberal Democrat Party still think the way to deal with unethical conduct and serious reputation issues is either denial, or denial followed by parish council procedures and bureaucratic excuses is extraordinary. That is follows an election where the same has severely damaged them shows a lack of survival instincts.

The next Leader will have to deal with this shower and their naval-gazing self-regard, or that survival is in doubt.

Drinking by numbers

HAT TIP: In case you missed it, the brilliant Guido Fawkes website put this little infographic up on its site yesterday…

It refers to a startling new report published by the Institute of Economic Affairs looking at the gloomy predictions about what the Licensing Act  (24 Hour Drinking) would do to the English nation. The graphic above pretty much says it all , but you can read a brief summary from the author (Christopher Snowdon) here. It has links to the fuller report on the IEA website.

Our thanks to Guido and co for the use of the image.