wow, sieg heil.

As far as Dana Reeve some articles blamed her getting lung cancer on working in nightclubs when she was younger. But if a smoker's lung cancer risk decreases this much when he quits, wouldn't it be even quicker for a nonsmoker who left a smoky environment?

I believe the IMMENSE FREAKING STRESS she was under caring for her husband for all those years is more likely what caused/aggravated the cancer, plus some people's bodies are just more susceptible. Same with Andy Kaufman (although his stress was probably more self-inflicted).

While, according to the SG, "There is no safe level of SHS exposure"...OSHA has classified safe levels for every chemical in cigarettes.

Smoke and SHS are WAY under all of OSHA's levels. For example, while there is formaldehyde in cigarettes, cooking dinner on a gas stove puts 400x more into the air than smoking a cigarette.

There is also arsenic in cigarettes, but it would take 375,000 cigarettes smoked per hour in an unventilated 40x20 foot room to reach unsafe OSHA levels.

As I'm sure you know, smoke dissipates in the air. In a "smokey" bar, SHS equals 1/1000th of a cigarette per hour. That would equal, for a average 40 hour work week, about 6 cigarettes per year for a bartender.

Not to mention that the president of the New York Cancer Society was quoted as saying "The Surgeon General's report is false and full of junk science".

Think on this:

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” –John F. Kennedy :rolleyes:

I'm not sure those statistics are accurate - I mean, it's a sales web site, and there's no citation whatsoever . . . the SG warning that said "Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health" wasn't because the risk of lung cancer would actually go down, IIRC, it was more because it wouldn't continue to increase (as it would continuously if the individual continued to smoke).

I've seen those statistics before, on non-sales sites, that just happened to be the first place I found a link.

This thread is starting to remind me of the OMG LEAD IN LIPSTICK email that circulates once a year or so.

Here's more details of some of the crap in cigarette smoke: http://www.whudafxup.com/?ref=truthsite

Listen, you guys can keep finding/making all the rationalizations you want or need to keep doing whatever you want to do. To YOURSELF. I don't want to breathe it, step on the discarded butts, smell it or smell like YOU. So keep it to yourself. I've seen what smoking can do to someone's health up close and personal and I'm telling you, it's not pretty. You can take that to heart or not, it's up to you. But remember, too, that it's not only "just" lung cancer that could be the beginning of the end for you, it's just your compromised lungs in and of themselves that could be the problem. I have yet another relative in ICU as we speak, heavy smoker, doesn't have cancer, but needed to have surgery for something heart-related and his lungs didn't recover well from the anesthesia. That started off a chain of reactions and all of a sudden all kinds of things are rearing their ugly heads. The drs. say that's common, the body can often "mask" hidden dangers while you're "healthy", but once given the chance to thrive when your body is weakened for whatever reason, then things start to go south.

So based on my experience, I believe that there is no "safe" level of exposure to smoke, first or second-hand. And I have the right to protect MY health since I choose not to smoke. I don't want to suck your gross smokey leftovers into MY clean lungs. How is that not a reasonable desire on a nonsmoker's part?

Plus they're so damn expensive these days. How does anyone even afford that habit?


ETA: sorry, I thought the link would go right to the "facts" page I was on; you have to select it from the menu on the left

Though your facts are in fact correct, you've just Godwin'd the thread and thus you lose. Sorry but those are the rules of the internet.

This is specious without cite - a quick search shows the NIH references nine studies that list side-stream smoke as containing 3x the OSHA standard for formaldehyde, for instance.

Additionally, you're making a fundamentally flawed assumption, which coincides with the problem with this point:

This dissipation is not an instantaneous process (or even nearly), like it would be with the individual chemicals released into the air in gas phase - in fact, the particulate smoke makes them much more likely to be inhaled since there is not homogeneity in a smoky atmosphere. It's concentrated, and can't be considered "dissipated" like you say, can it?

Again, you'll need cites, or this sounds like specious reasoning.

You have some nerve calling me a Nazi.

Maybe you aren't aware that the "police power" is one of the three ancient rights of sovereign states: police power, taxation power, and eminent domain. See http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-polit...-powers-state/. This is the power by which the state issues drivers' licenses, prevents the unauthorized practice of medicine, and punishes people who murder little old ladies. Are those all Nazi laws, too?

If you don't even know the difference between a core principle of sovereignty and the concept of a police STATE, which apparently you don't, then it isn't too surprising that instead of responding to the substance of my argument, you resorted to a vicious personal attack.
________
Web Shows

Where did I use the word Nazi? Other than in the sentence I just typed.

I think you have nerve sockpuppeting, but that's another matter.

I'm sorry, I must have misinterpreted your meaning when you responded to my comment with "sieg heil." That was the way Nazis addressed Hitler. I couldn't see any reason for you to address me in a Nazi manner unless you were trying to tell me that my argument was the kind of thing a Nazi would say.

Why don't you set me straight as to what you meant by "sieg heil"?

And yes, AlphaFrog, I guess I missed the joke. Guilty as charged.
________
GLASS SMOKING PIPES

Why don't you set all of GC straight as to your real identity?

Firstly, you have dipole moments at the SP orbitals, so the correct naming of this compound is dihydroxol... Or maybe a Bis-hydride-monoxide. ;)

Well, if you like to have hantavirus, and bubonic plaque in your food, hey, more power to you... Good luck with that. Within 2 weeks, everyone will be on respirators...

Seriously folks, the physiology is simple, you inhale an agent containing nicotine, formaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, etc., the tar interacts with your airways through the bronchi, etc. where there are helicobacter, bacillus and a few other interesting microorganisms, like candida, their processing of smoke is much more rapid that your alveolar cells, which some are epithelial in nature.

What these microbes put out is bizarre chiral compounds that are not biodegradable.

So when this crap is exhaled to a non-smoker, with unadulterated CTFR and a quite a few other signal transduction pathway gene products did not know to respond, what you all think happens to their microbes?

They die unless they mutate. For some people, it is not a very good thing.

That is why we physicians, scientists and public health officials try to stop it directly.