for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

Tanker Hi,

With Stanelco there is only ever going to be good news coming :)

Those that are impatient, will be the ones that lose out !

Cheers,
PM

Shamona, how can you say it is "selling" (above) if buys:sells are 2:1?

Markus Hi,

No point in taking any notice of blatant bashing, and your words will fall on deaf ears.

Cheers,
PM

Check out this website ....

EU Packaging Waste

Cheers,
PM

Yet another health scare re plastic packaging. Full report see link.

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct2005/niehs-04.htm

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, October 4, 2005

Independent Panel to Evaluate a Chemical Used in Some Plastics (Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) for Hazards to Human Development or Reproduction

A wide variety of consumer products including cosmetics, building and car materials, clothing, food packaging, some childrens toys, and even some medical devices often contain chemicals referred to as phthalates.

Scary.

Prosecutions hit firms failing to recover packaging waste
(28.09.05)

Companies that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging each year are being warned to make sure they comply with UK recycling regulations.

The warning came after a series of successful prosecutions by the Environment Agency this month under UK producer responsibility regulations. The regulations affect any company with a turnover of more than 2 million that handles more than 50 tonnes of packaging.

Companies above the threshold size are obligated by the regulations to register with the Environment Agency. They must then purchase enough packaging waste recovery notes (PRNs) in order to pay for their share of meeting UK packaging recovery targets. They can also join compliance schemes, which buy PRNs on their behalf.

Eurilait
Somerset cheese company Eurilait was one company that did not carry out its legal obligation to pay for recycling. For its offence, Eurilait was fined 12,000 with 1,126 costs last week.

The company had claimed it fell under the 50 tonne threshold and was not covered by the regulations. However, a visit by Agency inspectors to the company at Evercreech, near Shepton Mallet, found that 426 tonnes of packaging waste was handled in 2002 alone.

Inspectors estimated that Eurilait had illegally avoided about 8,000 in costs from neglecting to pay for recycling from 1999 to 2002. The company has since registered with compliance scheme Wastepack to carry out its obligation.

Two other companies that have also received fines this week for not carrying out their packaging recovery obligations were catalogue firm Aid-Pack Systems Ltd and fruit importers Minor, Weir and Wills Ltd.

Aid-Pack
Aid-Pack, a packaging catalogue firm based in Bedfordshire, was fined 4,500 with 1,443 costs for three offences under the regulations. The firm's general manager, John Taylor, had told Agency officers that it was unsure whether or not its French parent company had registered or joined a compliance scheme.

Birmingham-based fruit exporters Minor, Weir & Willis Ltd were fined 2,700 with 968 costs by city magistrates. The offence related to a "clerical error" which meant the company had not registered in 2004, despite carrying out legal requirements from 2000 to 2003.

Environment team leader Mike Sargent said: "It is disappointing to see that there are still companies out there who are oblivious to these regulations. It is essential that managers of companies fulfil their environmental obligations."

http://www.letsrecycle.com/

Calls flood hotline to report cigarette-tossing motorists
By Terry Rodgers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

October 3, 2005

The year-old "Hold on to Your Butt" hotline, which allows people to report motorists who flick cigarettes from their vehicles in San Diego County, has proven far more popular than anyone expected.

Since its debut last October, the toll-free hotline has received nearly 11,000 calls.

"We were all blown away when the hotline started ringing," said Marianne Brown, former chairwoman of the county's Tobacco Litter Abatement Task Force, which launched the effort to convince the public that cigarette litter is unacceptable. "At one point, we were getting 200 calls a day."

Some folks who are especially annoyed by "litterbutts" the term for smokers who flick their tobacco have programmed the hotline number into their cell phones, Brown said.

By comparison, a statewide litter hotline in Pennsylvania records a yearly average of 6,000 calls, 90 percent of them related to litterbutts

Calls are recorded by the county and forwarded to the California Highway Patrol. When time permits, officers verify each license number and mail a warning letter to the vehicle's registered owner. The local chapter of the American Heart Association pays for the postage.

Cigarette litter is the most common type of debris collected in volunteer cleanups nationwide, according to Keep America Beautiful, a nonprofit group whose primary sponsor is Phillip Morris USA, a tobacco company.

In San Diego, smokers generate 5 million cigarette butts a day, which comes to 1.83 billion a year.

Sarah Leone, 28, has called the litterbutt hotline three times in the past year.

"I don't feel like I'm being a tattletale," said Leone, volunteer coordinator for I Love a Clean San Diego, a nonprofit group dedicated to eradicating litter and promoting recycling. "I'm on a mission to educate as many people as I can."

The hotline allows people to address an annoying problem but still remain anonymous and avoid a confrontation with the litterbutt, she said.

The Highway Patrol has issued roughly 1,000 warnings a rate of one letter sent for every 11 calls to the hotline. Highway Patrol officials did not respond to phone calls seeking an explanation for the low ratio of letters sent versus calls to the hotline.

Worded to educate as well as intimidate, the form letter says tossing a cigarette onto a roadway is punishable by a fine ranging from $340 to $1,000. The missive points out that cigarette butts are not biodegradable and have harmful effects on wildlife and the environment. No fines have been issued so far.

Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, a synthetic fiber that looks like cotton but doesn't deteriorate for up to 11 years. Many of them are washed down storm drains and end up in the ocean, where they are mistaken for food by fish and birds. In addition, nicotine inside the filters is an insecticide that is toxic to small crustaceans.

The letter also points out that wildfires have been caused by carelessly discarded cigarettes. One such fire in January 2001 burned more than 10,000 acres and caused $5.3 million in damage in Alpine.

Smokers who drive had better watch their cigarette butts.

For the year ending March 31, Highway Patrol officers issued 456 tickets countywide to people who threw a lighted substance onto a highway. Statewide, the agency issues about 5,600 tickets annually for the offense.

The county's Tobacco Resource Control Program is planning a new campaign that targets pedestrians who toss their cigarette butts on the ground.

The proposed slogan: "Smash it and Trash it."

Markus

Unlike the rampers I always back up what I post, the price is down which means theirs selling pressure on the stock; probably technical selling as it bounces off the upper end of the downtrend. The really big price changing aCtion is often disguised in the form of T trades and can be worked into the market over several days, if it appears more buys than sells are going through it's 99% certain it means a big seller is off loading in the background.

I'll let Paul bury this post in useless google for tonight but may reply again tomorrow if you require further clarification.

btw Does anyone actually read that non related google stuff?

Surely a link would suffice, it has nothing to do with this company.

Hi All,

I just found a few more uses for the Filter Tow, had a think, and sent my ideas to HQ .... a few more possible biodegradable products to add to the IP collection, not packaging, but likely to be worth a few quid, and the IP could be sold, just like with the Ciggy filters :)

Cheers,
PM

I wonder if HQ have a filter/squelch........

Good work PM1 - keep it up!

I wonder how the vote would go now, if it was instead to change to Starch Filter Tow ????


Eastman Chemical Company - EMN
Filed By: Sisters of Mercy Regional Community of Detroit

Date Filed: 3/30/2001
Annual Meeting Date: 5/3/2001
Company Home Page

Proposal Text

Shareowner Sisters of Mercy Regional Community of Detroit, 29000 Eleven Mile Road, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48336, holder of 575 shares of Eastman common stock, has given notice that it intends to submit the following proposal and supporting statement:

WHEREAS Eastman Chemical is a major producer of cellulose acetate tow, which is used in the manufacture of cigarette filters:

- During smoking, cigarette filter fibers become coated with carcinogen-laden deposits from cigarette smoke; - Also cellulose acetate cigarette filter fibers can dislodge from cigarettes and become transported into the lungs of consumers; - Scientists at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute have demonstrated the presence of cigarette filter fibers like the ones this company manufactures in the lungs of smokers; - These scientists have hypothesized that such fibers in the lungs of smokers might serve as reservoirs for carcinogens over a long period of time. This suggests that cellulose acetate filters may contribute to diseases caused by cigarettes in smokers; - If cellulose acetate filters contribute to cigarette-caused disease, Eastman Chemical may be liable for injuries to smokers as the tobacco litigation net gets thrown wider and wider.

RESOLVED: That shareholders request that management conduct a study examining possible health risks posed by our filter tows among consumers who smoke cigarettes with cellulose acetate filters. This study shall include a review of all information known or available to the company on this subject but need not involve any new primary research. The study and any recommendations that emerge from it are to be completed within one year of the 2000 Annual Meeting. Copies of the complete report shall be made available to requesting shareholders.

Supporting Statement of Proponent

Cigarette smoke contains dozens of potent carcinogens. Cellulose acetate fibers that are supposed to trap these poisons can themselves be transported into the lungs, laden with these dangerous substances. We believe this resolution and the study it requests are in the best interests of consumers as well as in the interests of our company and shareholders.

Certainly it is in our interest as management and investors to be fully informed about any and all health risks to smokers to which Eastman Chemical contributes. We need to know, for example, if our products are deemed to contribute to cancer or if we may be faced with legal and financial liabilities. It is only fair to consumers as well that they are fully aware of all of the dangers of smoking.

If you believe that Eastman Chemical and its shareholders should be fully apprised as to whether the cellulose acetate tow the company sells to the cigarette manufacturers is contributing to the various illnesses caused by cigarettes, please vote YES in support of this resolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board Response:
Eastman is committed to protecting health, safety, and the environment. The Company subscribes to the Responsible Care(R) program of the American Chemistry Council, which includes product stewardship principles. Management continually evaluates the opportunities and challenges facing each of the Company's businesses and major products and develops information and plans in view of changing environments. The Board and management are cognizant of the scientific, legal, and business developments relative to acetate tow and its uses. The Board, as elected by the shareowners, and the officers, as the Board's agents, manage the myriad of factors that affect the Company's business and make business policy to conduct the Company's affairs. The report called for by this proposal is clearly within the purview of management. The Board does not believe the expenditure of management time and effort and Company resources required for the preparation of the report requested by the proposal is in the best interests of the Company or its shareowners.

The proposal on its face requests that management conduct a "study" of health issues related to our cellulose acetate tow product line. In fact, the proposal concerns substantially the same subject matter as proposals concerning this product line which have been submitted in past years to the Company by members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, of which the proponent is also a member. One such proposal, seeking divestiture of the cellulose acetate tow business, also raised litigation, liability, and health issues and received only 2.8% of the votes cast at the 1996 Annual Meeting of Shareowners. Your management's views on the current proposal are essentially the same as those it had concerning that proposal, which views were supported overwhelmingly by the shareowners.

THE COMPANY'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE "AGAINST" ADOPTION OF THIS PROPOSAL.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voting Results
Votes For: 4,487,129
Votes Against: 51,749,446
Abstentions: 3,287,453
Total Votes: 65,822,975

http://roswell.tobaccodocuments.org/

Looks like Stanelco took extracts from this research to use in the RNS and Business Wire :)



Cigarettes with defective filters marketed for 40 years: what Philip Morris never told smokers

J L Pauly1, A B Mepani3, J D Lesses1, K M Cummings2 and R J Streck1
1 Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, New York State Department of Health, Buffalo, New York 14263, USA
2 Department of Cancer Prevention, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute
3 Cornell University, School of Arts and Sciences, Ithaca, New York 14850, USA



Full Text here ...

Full PDF here ....




Before learning of the fall-out studies of Phillip Morris,
Inc, we published the results of comprehensive tests
documenting that cellulose acetate filter fibres were released
from modern day cigarettes. Specifically, filter fibres were
released from 12 different US cigarette brands; two brands
from each of six different US companies. All cigarettes tested
were purchased from local vendors.97 98 Cellulose acetate filter
fibres were implanted in mice for six months. The fibres withstood
degradation and retained the tobacco brown colour and
bright fluorescence of the tobacco tar that had been adsorbed
from cigarette smoke. We reported also the presence of cellulose
acetate cigarette filter fibres in human lung tissue. In his
critique of this study, tobacco spokesperson Professor Dr F
Adlkofer noted that: With high probability, the fibres which
were seen by the authors in the lungs of smokers with lung
cancer are in fact cellulose acetate fibres.15

Results of studies presented in this report have been
confirmed and extended in investigations of consenting adult
smokers. The participant smoked a popular US filter cigarette
in his/her usual manner, but was instructed not to inhale the
smoke. Mouth washes of water were collected before
smoking, at different intervals during smoking, and after
smoking. The results showed that washes collected from all
subjects and for all cigarettes smoked contained cellulose
acetate cigarette filter fibres (range 225 fibres). In contrast,
mouth washes obtained before smoking had no fibres.Notable
is that most of the filter fibres harvested from the mouth were
coated with tobacco tar.

This paper discloses that Philip Morris, Inc has known
and concealed for approximately 40 years that fibres and
particles fall-out of the filter of cigarettes during smoking.
Other companies have assessed also the discharge of filter
fibres. In addressing this filter defect, the tobacco
industrys response has been variable, ranging from denial
of the discharge of filter fibres to the development of innovative
technologies for correcting and preventing the
problem. Consumers have not been informed of the filter
defect. Further, there is no indication that existing
corrective technologies and invention have been uniformly
implemented. Summarily, the tobacco industry has been:
(a) derelict in concealing information of filter defects; (b)
negligent in implementing technologies available to
prevent or reduce the emission of filter elements; and (c)
wrongful in not investigating the toxicology and harm
associated with defective filters of todays cigarettes that
are being marketed worldwide.

Mean anything to anyone here?

------

"Warm Glow,

Turkish delight? to add to pols.

For Delivery And then go. Swop the balloon, heat shield required. Stripes and pattern as one.

b2 done, b3 but first be very organised in purchasing.

A wise man is no fool, he sticks with what he knows."


:-s

Phart Hi,

Poster radioactiveman .... "Warm Glow"

Turkish Delight is like jelly, added to Starpol ? nah !, maybe SEO have seen a Turkish company to add to Biotec ? .... "Turkish delight? to add to pols."

Selling of the Cigarette Filter IP, and sticking with packaging .... "A wise man is no fool, he sticks with what he knows."

FDA is in caps .... "For Delivery And then go" .... that would be either Starpol 2000, or the capsules passing FDA regulations, then it's all systems go.

No idea about the rest ....

Cheers,
PM

LOL !!

Truly pissing myself laughing at Mastersons ineptitude, the code is from disgraced council worker gmanhi!!!!!!!!!!! lol!

Must have another word with his admin leader boss, I know some people who pay council tax in the Southampton vicinity are peeved that he spends all day on the computer when he should be helping out taxpayers.

morning all. lovely views this morning.
pm1, while i agree with you that cig butts are a litter problem, to try to state that tobacco companies actually give a shit about the health of people is a joke. i cannot see the ip going for much, if only because one is patent pending. but, as always, nobody really knows how much the ip will go for. might as well wait until some are announced.

I think it will be the 30-50% cost saving that makes the IP so valuable Bos.