Illinois Smoking Ban

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

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

It goes by many names, but is dangerous in all of them!

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It goes by many names, but is dangerous in all of them!

Especially the Naturemia...

[JonoBN41]

Since Tom brought it up, I checked on radon. According to the EPA's Radon site:

1) Smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer. Smoking causes an estimated 160,000 deaths in the U.S. every year (American Cancer Society, 2004).

2) Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked.

3) Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of lung cancer and responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 1,000 of these are people that never smoked, and about 2,000 are former smokers.

There is no explanation how they determined those 1,000 non-smokers were not - like the rest of us - exposed to radon, which they claim is ubiquitous. "Radon is found in outdoor air and in the indoor air of buildings of all kinds."

More information can be found at Science Daily. These caught my attention.

"Secondhand Smoke Linked To Risk Of Tooth Loss. (Apr. 4, 2007) — A study published in this month's issue of the Journal of Periodontology found that subjects with periodontitis who were exposed to secondhand smoke were more likely to develop bone loss, the number one cause of tooth loss." The subjects, by the way, were rats that were induced with periodontitis.

"Secondhand Smoke Increases High School Test Failure, Study Suggests (Sep. 24, 2007) — Teens exposed to secondhand smoke at home are at increased risk of test failure in school, suggests a new study." The "new study", it turns out, was a meta-study of the 1958 British National Child Development Study. Buried within the article is the admission that, "The study did not reveal why secondhand smoke influenced failure, and the researchers were unable to include other known factors, for example, learning disabilities, that could also affect learning and academic test performance."
But it made headlines anyway as well as ABC News 9/23/07.

And now shall we ban the ban? My favorite.

"Indoor Smoking Bans: Are They Creating Unhealthy Outdoor Zones For Secondhand Smoke? (May 23, 2007) — With the growing number of smoking bans in restaurants and bars driving smokers outside, researchers are hoping to find out whether secondhand smoke from smokers clustered outside...

Yes, the researchers are hoping.

I have nothing against this sort of entertainment, but do not mistake it for science. There is still no evidence, much less proof, that second-hand smoke is harmful to anyone of any age, with any amount of exposure no matter how long. If there were, there would be no need for these types of stories.

[jmagnus]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Sorry buddy, I honestly would if I could. I did some research for my speech class last year and I C&Ped it out of my paper. Apparently I lost the works cited page. You don't have to believe it, but they did come from legitimate sources. I have no reason to lie because it's not like anyone on here will actually change their opinion from what others say anyways.

Monet,
I have to admit that your science talk confuses the hell out of me. You are uber-smart...I get it. If you wouldn't mind though, I would appreciate it if you could "dumb it down" a little. I'm sure you make good points but if I have to google every 3rd word...It's just not worth it. Also, we all know smoking isn't good for you. Thats not the argument...at least for me. I just think it's not as bad as everyone wants us to think. In fact, smoking is related to lowered risks of alzheimers and parkensens. Don't quote me on that but the info is out there if you want to look it up yourself.

[Drolefille]

Smoking Doubles Alzheimer's Risk

SMOKERS ARE more than twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's disease as non-smokers, according to a new study.

The researchers, who report their findings in the Lancet medical journal, found that smokers who carry the Apoe 4 gene, which has been linked with Alzheimer's, were at no greater risk of developing the disease than non- smokers. However, those without the gene were at four times the risk. One explanation of why Apoe 4 might protect smokers is that smoking alters brain chemistry in a way that counters some of the effects of Alzheimer's disease. However, it is also possible that smokers with Apoe 4 die young, so do not live long enough to develop the disease, the researchers say.

So you know, it might lower your risk if you're genetically predisposed, but they don't know why and it might be because you're already dead.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...BrandChannel=0

"It is not our intent to promote smoking as a protective measure against Parkinson's disease," Evan L. Thacker from Harvard School of Public Health emphasized in comments to Reuters Health. "Obviously smoking has a multitude of negative consequences. Rather, we did this study to try to encourage other scientists...to consider the possibility that neuroprotective chemicals may be present in tobacco leaves."
Compared to people who had never smoked and were considered to have "normal" Parkinson's disease risk, former smokers had a 22-percent lower risk of Parkinson's disease and current smokers had a 73-percent lower risk.
Studies to determine if, in fact, there are neuroprotective compounds in tobacco are warranted, the researchers say. "The observation that smokeless tobacco users also have a lower risk of Parkinson's disease suggests that the most likely candidates are not compounds generated by combustion, but rather constituents of the tobacco leaves.

They believe it is something in the tobacco, not smoking itself that reduces your risk of Parkinson's and no one is recommending it to prevent the disease. Claiming that somehow this negates the known negative effects of smoking is silly. As is claiming that second-hand smoke does not negatively effect the passerby but somehow might positively do so.

People's minds aren't going to change on this because no matter if smoke is truly dangerous or not it is uncomfortable, smells bad, and ruins the taste of food. So you could tell me tomorrow that second hand smoke cures the common cold and I wouldn't sit next to a smoker in a restaurant or go to a smoke-filled bar, pub, or bowling alley.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

More information can be found at Science Daily.

Science Daily is NOT a true trade journal for biomedical and biotech sciences. It is interesting factoids relatively based in science. I typically have to read, Science, Nature and all the compendium journals, JAMA and NEJM; then cross reference them grants submitted to NIH to get full facts.

Now if the top US scientists at Harvard, Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, UMDNY, Cornell, NYU, MIT, Duke Southwestern, UCB, UCSF, UCLA, UW, UColorado, Northwestern, Chicago, and may others etc. are lying about their research, then all have completely had the wool pulled over our eyes.

I just go by what my physician friends in the ER have to see on a daily basis. And since the Baby Boomers are aging, they will be the ones that are coming in with these combined complications--diabetes + cancer, heart attack + cancer, stroke + cancer. That chit is not funny when you have it... Till you are walking through wards or deal with a loved one who suffering these problems or yourself hooked up to 0.5% Saline + morphine drip easing your pain 'cuz your case is terminal up in hospice, then do not come to us crying about this reality... Based on population alone, this healthcare fiasco is going to get worse...

Originally Posted by jmagnus

Monet,
I have to admit that your science talk confuses the hell out of me. You are uber-smart...I get it. If you wouldn't mind though, I would appreciate it if you could "dumb it down" a little. I'm sure you make good points but if I have to google every 3rd word...It's just not worth it. Also, we all know smoking isn't good for you. Thats not the argument...at least for me. I just think it's not as bad as everyone wants us to think. In fact, smoking is related to lowered risks of alzheimers and parkensens. Don't quote me on that but the info is out there if you want to look it up yourself.

There are several other GC'ers much more smarter than me. Shinerbock, macallan, Drolefille, 33girl, valkyrie, Professor, AKA2D'91, DSTChaos, Jubilance.

OtterOX and Epchick are in medical school right now. As well as quite a few others. Apparently AlphaFrog is a former EMT. So when we are telling you these things, these are not only our professional opinions, these are all our professional experiences--on rounds or runs to help folks out. Why would we lie?

Originally Posted by Drolefille

They believe it is something in the tobacco, not smoking itself that reduces your risk of Parkinson's and no one is recommending it to prevent the disease. Claiming that somehow this negates the known negative effects of smoking is silly. As is claiming that second-hand smoke does not negatively effect the passerby but somehow might positively do so.

To add:

What has been shown in animal models and pathologic autopsy reports in humans is that the additives combined with highly reactive nicotine--classified as a drug substances binds various receptors in the brain: nicotinoids, opiods, cannabinoids and NMDA receptors. Each of these receptors regulate neurotransmitter release and regulation, namely norepinephrine, dopamine and possibly seratonin. Depolarization and hyperpolarization down the axons are what is at stake here. In Parkinson's, there is a problem with neuronal health as well as other cells in the brain, I think stellates and astrals, but I could be wrong. Glial cells are always an issue, too.

Why nicotine has some protective effect has not been examined. Then again, why THC decreases pain also has not been examined. Moreover, a lot is not known about many drugs we take or abuse: Cocaine or aspirin, etc.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Since Tom brought it up, I checked on radon. According to the EPA's Radon site:


3) Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of lung cancer and responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 1,000 of these are people that never smoked, and about 2,000 are former smokers.

There is no explanation how they determined those 1,000 non-smokers were not - like the rest of us - exposed to radon, which they claim is ubiquitous. "Radon is found in outdoor air and in the indoor air of buildings of all kinds."

I'm trying to figure out how they figure that 2000 former smokers are getting the lung cancer from secondhand smoke and not the cigarettes they smoked when they were smokers.

ETA: They've also found that nicotine reduces exacerbations of ulcerative colitis and some people with UC have actually been put on the nicotine patch to help with their UC (they don't recommend that they smoke though). Conversely, a very similar disease, Crohn's, has shown the opposite. Recurrences increase with tobacco use for Crohn's.

[Low C Sharp]

My real identity? I created this username to make my retro rush thread more anonymous. I haven't used the old one since (it was a little too close to my real name), but I was a very uncontroversial and boring GC member under both usernames, so I don't know who you think I am.
________
Paxil Settlement

[texas*princess]

AKA_Monet posted some pics a few pages back that showed the cancers that can develop on your mouth area due to tobacco & smoking.

Kinda random, but I saw on a show last week that countries like Singapore put those pictures ON THE CIGARETTE CARTONS. I think that's an awesome idea, but I guess it wouldn't be effective for everyone because everyone thinks they are invisible to that sort of thing.

My younger sister is a smoker, and I really really wish she wouldn't smoke It is just such a disgusting habit and her car reeks of it on top of all of the health issues it can cause.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Smoking is not just bad for your lungs - it's bad for other parts of your body, too, like your HEART. My dad, who was a chain smoker from 14 through the end of his life, DIED at age 52 from plaque built up in his arteries due to smoking. We were always worried about his lungs, but never thought about his heart...until he died suddenly in his sleep. Smoking will get you, one way or the other.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

AKA_Monet posted some pics a few pages back that showed the cancers that can develop on your mouth area due to tobacco & smoking.

Kinda random, but I saw on a show last week that countries like Singapore put those pictures ON THE CIGARETTE CARTONS. I think that's an awesome idea, but I guess it wouldn't be effective for everyone because everyone thinks they are invisible to that sort of thing.

My younger sister is a smoker, and I really really wish she wouldn't smoke It is just such a disgusting habit and her car reeks of it on top of all of the health issues it can cause.

Canada does this as well I believe.

[PeppyGPhiB]

In the EU, cigarette packaging has big you-can't-miss-it labeling. I took some photos the last time I was there. Here's some samples I found on the Web from the UK and elsewhere:

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

There are several other GC'ers much more smarter than me. Shinerbock, macallan, Drolefille, 33girl, valkyrie, Professor, AKA2D'91, DSTChaos, Jubilance.

LOL. If you insist.

I agree with jmangus that some of your posts do confuse the helloutta me when you're in your "zone."

I guess the same can be said for some of my posts for certain topics. Not because any of us are "ohhhh soo smart" but because we are typing within our fields of specialty/expertise and sometimes forget that we're presenting the info to the public (I don't like to refer to that as "dumbing down," though ).

[DSTCHAOS]

Smoking should be illegal. I'm kind of serious about that. [None of my friends or family members smoke. The ones who tried to sometimes be "social" or even "stress" smokers were immediately chastised by me when I found out. I got quite a few of my colleagues to stop smoking because I would join them and playfully heckle them during their smoke breaks. "Take a breather instead of a smoke. You're killing yourself."]

If people want to smoke, they should be forced to do so in their cars with other smokers (and no children) or in the dark alleys of establishments. Oh yeah, and at home but only when smokers are by themselves or around other smokers (and, again, no children).

Point being, smoking is potentially deadly and somehow it is still legal whereas other things that are arguably less harmful are illegal. Unlike alcohol consumption, I argue that there's no "moderation" with smoking. So if you want to kill yourself, have at it. It's when you want to harm and kill others that I have a huge problem.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Apparently AlphaFrog is a former EMT.

I think you're thinking of centaur/pfr/AlexMack.

I was never an EMT (I just played one on TV ).