Jump to article index
From: ????????????????????????
Subject: Pipes Digest #92 - January 9, 1993

		  Pipes Digest #92 - January 9, 1993

Happy New Year! And welcome to new members:

	<Name not sent>		(????????????????????????????)
	Joe Reda		(???????????????????????)

~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: ???????????????????????? (Art Ferruzzi)
Subject: Smoke Shops

Since I grew up in the Boston area, I'm surprised that 
nobody has mentioned those bastions of pipe smoking:

David P. Ehrlich (Downtown Boston)

Leavitt & Pierce (Harvard Square, affiliated with Ehrlich)

Peretti's  (Boston area. Two (?) stores.)

They have/had a very good mail order service. At least
they did the last time I checked. I used to know all
of Ehrlich's blends, and they seem to have a blend for
just about any taste, from mild cavendish and flavored
cavendish to burley to virginias and turkish and english
styles. I don't quite know what's in their "D.P.E.", 
but there seems to be a little bit of everything, and it
is a good smoke for people who want more than a
burley or cavendish. I used to buy blending tobaccos,
and experimented with burley and virginia bases with
some turkish or latakia or perique. Unless you're a
real dedicated pipe smoker it's easier to stick with
"known" blends. There's nothing as smooth as the
Dunhill or Balkan Sobranie blends, though some of the
"house" blends are quite nice, and a lot less expensive.
I used to like Ehrhich's "Number 68" blend a lot. (medium
English blend)

I wonder if people in the Boston area are subscribing to 
this group. Let me know if any are. I don't have the addresses
for the companies mentioned above, but I can look them up
in my files. I just moved from one side of the Bay to the
other, and I have to update my mail order catalog addresses.
I woudn't publish the commentary above since it's based on
non-recent recollections. O.K. to include it if you get
some info from Boston. I just got a job at U.C. Berkeley
( no, Berkeley hasn't banned outdoor smoking, (yet)) and
I am looking into the local scene. Still haven't found any
better than the mail order places, but it's hard to sample
from 3000 miles away. Unless you order a sampler, memory 
has to suffice. Whelan's is just off campus. I'll have to
sample their wares someday. Until then, I'll work on that


[ Thanks for the mention, Art! I'd like to put them in the Resource
List; would appreciate the full addresses, if you (or anyone else) has
them. -S. ]

~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

From: Steve Masticola (???????????????????????)
Subject: EPA antismoker ruling

Well, here we go again.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week classified
"environmental tobacco smoke" as a class 1 carcinogen, in the same
class as radon and asbesdos. This from the same government that
classifies marijuana as a schedule A narcotic (along with heroin and
crack), and once classified ketchup as a vegetable.

Now, I'm not in favor of making other folks uncomfortable, and do not
generally smoke where it would be objectionable to anybody. But the
EPA's risk assessment is faulty, and they know it. The only thing it
proves is that the EPA does not like smokers. Unfortunately, a lot of
people are going to believe it, and we can expect another wave of
tobacco-bashing and further restrictions.

In order to prevent some of that, I'm passing along the following
information. They show that most people voluntarily expose themselves
to risks a lot worse than smoke, every day of their lives. Please
circulate it wherever you feel it would do some good. And, at least
until the Government outlaws it,

					Smoke in peace,
					~\U Steve.


		      Relative Degrees of Risk -
   Environmental Tobacco Smoke vs. Other Activities or Consumption

Environmental Protection	|
Agency on Environmental		|###### 1.19
Tobacco Smoke			|
Non-smoker			|
keeping pet birds		|################################## 6.70
(Holst, 1988)			|
Pork chops, 1x per week		|########### 2.12
(Mettlin, 1989)			|
Whole milk, 3x per day		|########### 2.14
(Mettlin, 1989)			|
Pork Sausage, 1x per week	|############ 2.42
(Mettlin, 1989)			|
The scale is linear; a risk of 2 is twice the danger of a risk of 1.
The units of risk are arbitrary.

	  Latest Studies of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Risk
	       (Consumers' Research, July 1991, 74:7.)

Study				Relative Risk
-----				-------------
Janerich, et. al. 1990		    	0.093
Kabat, 1990			   	1.200
Kalandidi et. al., 1990		    	2.110
Sobue et. al., 1990		    	0.940
Svenson, 1990			    	1.200
Wu-Williams, et. al., 1990	    	0.700

"ETS is so diluted that it is almost impossible to measure the
carcinogens, and the tests do not include the risks from exposure to
asbesdos or radon, family history, diet, pollution, etc., each of
which can cause illenss."

					Gary Huber, M.D.
					Robert E. Brockie, M.D.
					Vijay Mahajan, M. D.
					_Consumers' Research_, July 1991, 74:7.

"Anyone who is mindful of the welter of really serious health and
environmental problems with which mankind is faced must be amazed, if
not disgusted, by the huge effort and resources that have been and are
being devoted to try and distinguish between 'a very low cancer risk'
and 'no' cancer risk, from ETS.

"Indeed, those who keep this pot boiling now may well be accused of
having got their priorities wrong and thereby delayed progress toward
solving much more serious problems."

					Dr. Francis Roe
					_Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
					 Proceedings of the
					 International Symposium at
					 McGill University._ 
					Lexington Books, 1989.

 U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ | ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U
 )				       *   *				  )
( Pipe smokers will rule the world!      *   ??????????????????????	 (
 ) (if they don't run out of matches...) *   Steve Masticola, moderator	  )
(				       *   *				 (
 U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ U/~ | ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U

Article Index

  1. Subject: Pipes Digest #92 - January 9, 1993
  2. Subject: Smoke Shops
  3. Subject: EPA antismoker ruling
Previous Home Next