Comments on: The war on smokers reaches a new level

By: harleyrider1778

harleyrider1778 — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:39:08 +0000

Don Carlos Says:

March 25th, 2014 at 2:32 pm

“Science hasn’t yet quantified the amount of exposure that poses a health risk.”
A health risk of what magnitude constitutes a real risk? One chance in a million? One in a thousand? One in ten?
“Science” doesn’t do anything, either. It is people, mere mortals who often get it wrong, who do the science.

We are awash in sloppy thinking.

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9é—20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

By: Spunky

Spunky — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:27:30 +0000

I grew up in a smoking household. When I started working for the federal gov’t in Washington, DC in the early-1970’s, it was standard for all conference rooms (usually enclosed, no windows) to have several ashtrays on the conference table. At the start of a meeting, half the attendees would light up. The presumption was in favor of smoking – polite requests not to smoke were ignored and often ridiculed. Over a several-year period, non-smokers got guts and shamed the smokers out before smoking was forbidden. I never saw violence during this transition, but it came close a few times when smokers wouldn’t back down.

I agree that the scientific evidence against second (and third)-hand smoke is weak. But I wouldn’t go back to the old days for anything. Big improvement in the quality of life generally. It’s a shame the powerful addiction forced government action. The article you cite feels like some scientists are trying to catch the gov’t funding gravy train with this third-hand smoke business.

My Dad tells of when the gov’t got rid of the cuspidors (spitoons) in gov’t offices in the 1950’s. A tale for another time….

By: Don Carlos

Don Carlos — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:32:06 +0000

We are awash in sloppy thinking.

By: kit

kit — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:12:07 +0000

Whatever the arguments on either side, smoking is a dirty habit. It dirties lungs, the air, the breath, skin, hair, teeth, clothing upholstery, walls and ceilings.
When they cleaned Grand Central Station in NY and removed the grime to reveal its former beauty, they left a black patch on the ceiling to show what filth, nicotine had caused. When I have been subjected to cigarette smoke, I start to have trouble breathing and my esophagus feels like it has been charred.
I dont want my lungs to breathe that filthy air. A smoker’s rights end where my lungs begin.
Therefore, I am grateful for the ban on smoking in public places.
I have seen samples of the lungs of dead smokers and it is nothing to be proud of.
Smoking is a very selfish addiction and smokers should confine their dirty habit to the privacy of their own homes. Lung tissue is very delicate and since it is not my disgusting habit, why should I be subjected to even smaller amounts of it.

Unfortunately, you cannot legislate consideration. Smokers want to smoke regardless of how others feel about it. So even in a free land, we need laws to ban smoking so that non smokers are free to breathe freely.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:17:25 +0000

Rush Limbaugh said something funny today: People have said to him that they allow their teenage children to have sex in the house because “You Can’t Stop Them! They’re gonna do it!” And one woman said to Rush, “At least I know [the bedroom in my house] is clean.”

So Rush said, “Why don’t you put a pack of cigarettes on the nightstand for them to enjoy afterwards?”

She was appalled — “Oh, no, I can’t let them SMOKE!”

Yeppers, that’s the type of birdbrain we have as parents these days. Pathetic twits.

By: chuck

chuck — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:47:58 +0000

But after the smokers are gone, who will pay for the children?

By: harleyrider1778

harleyrider1778 — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:55:36 +0000

Confidence trick

It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition.”
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

By: harleyrider1778

harleyrider1778 — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:40:52 +0000

Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome–you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War–When the Evidence Has to Be Created

http://www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealth.html#tabacco

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:27:49 +0000

As I have stated before, the cause of cancer is unknown. In 1971 the National Cancer Institute was tasked to find the cause of cancer and they have not succeeded. Even better, I have the surgeon general 1967 report on smoking and health which shows moderate smokers have lower mortality and disease rates than nonsmokers. That report is not on the surgeon general website because it has been disappeared.
Go here, next to last paragraph. http://training.seer.cancer.gov/disease/war/

By: blert

blert — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:27:47 +0000

The new generation is working at cross purposes.

Why legalize 420 — aka prop 215 goods — when even a carbonizing flame is a crime against nature?