A friend told me that the sale of Marlboro cigarettes has been banned in Holland because they have KKK either printed or embossed on the pack. Any truth to any of this, the banning or the KKK? Or, is it another of those Procter & Gamble type of hoaxes?
There's no truth to rumors of a Marlboro ban in Holland, nor to allegations that "KKK" is emblazoned on Marlboro packaging. These are indeed similar to the (equally untrue) rumors to the effect that Procter & Gamble's corporate logo contains Satanic imagery and at least as old.
A correspondent from The Netherlands explains:
"KKK ownership of Marlboro was a very popular urban legend in The Netherlands (Holland) during the late '70s, early '80s (I grew up there). As far as I am aware, no ban was ever contemplated. The whole premise was that the logo of a white triangle against a red background forms a K. Turn the package around and there is one of these on each side, except the side where the warning is printed."
For the record, Philip Morris, the company that manufactures Marlboro cigarettes, denies any affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, period.
Someone forwarded this to me. They asked if I thought it was real or an urban legend. Have you ever heard of this? It sounds unlikely to me. Is there such a thing as The U.S. Police Dept.? Thanks.
Author: FOREMANG at 53WCC
Date: 3/30/98 2:34 PM
PASS TO 53D WING EMPLOYEES TO INCLUDE UNITS.
Subject: Slim-Jim and Side-Impact Air Bags Could Be Deadly Combination
The US Police Dept. sent out this helpful warning: Don't try to use a coat hanger or any other metal device, such as a Slim Jim, to unlock a car door that has side-impact bags. You could accidentally deploy the air bag, launching the jimmied device upward with enough force to penetrate your chin (and brain). At least three law enforcement officers have been killed using a Slim Jim by inadvertently deploying the air bag.
Even when lockout assistance efforts do not prove to be deadly, the damage costs can be significant and may include thousands of dollars for replacement of the dashboard, which is designed to breakaway so as not to harm the driver or front passenger."
This information was provided by Tom Murphy, Safety Manager, DCMC San Francisco, CA
Several versions of this warning have circulated since late 1997, often showing up on law enforcement mailing lists and related newsgroups. I've checked around, and so far no one has been able to confirm that any police officers have died or even been injured in the manner described. Apparently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concurs. The following was posted to a folklore discussion list in December:
From a 12-12-97 message sent out by NLETS (National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System), at the the request of the Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin.
"NHTSA states that they have been unable to confirm any instances of a slimjim triggering a side-impact airbag. NHTSA further states that the vehicle manufacturers state that it is impossible to deploy an airbag using a slimjim."
Re: Kidney Snatchers
You can reason away any situation: the floor is not collapsing away beneath me. I know the man that constructed the house and he says the floor is very strong.
But that is not going to help you as your ass hits the basement floor!
If I hear a warning, I take heed, even if the warning has no substance. If you keep your eyes and ears open and accept what you receive as information, what harm is there? As for the "urban legend" of the organ reapers, there is a lot of truth in it. Recently in Fairfax county VA, there was a Coroner who was harvesting fresh cadavers of their Kidneys and various other parts, without the permission of the next of kin. He had quite a stock of harvested parts and had admitted that there was a sizeable number already sold. Now, if you can use a harvested kidney from a cadaver... As I understand, it is not the harvesting that takes the strenuous testing it is the implantation that one must worry about rejection by the host. (Severed limbs can be reattached, even when they have been not too cleanly detached.) That as well as the research I have done on my own makes me think your debunking attempt is actually an attempt to hide the real information with a bogus "all is well" that in this case is very dangerous.
Where there is smoke there is fire.
Your debunking on this case was like the FAA needing bodies to justify a change in procedure.
It's difficult to respond to this except to say that I have profound admiration for anyone who can utter a sentence like, "If I hear a warning, I take heed, even if the warning has no substance," with a straight face. I think, in fact, I'll make it my credo just as soon as I finish writing the National Kidney Foundation to tell them they don't know what they're talking about.