Illinois Smoking Ban

[JonoBN41]

This second-hand smoke business is hysterical, and I mean that. People assume now that it's genuinely harmful.

In 2006 the U.S. Surgeon General called a press conference and practically pounded on the podium in order to impress upon us all that second-hand smoke is harmful, and that there is no safe level of exposure.

There are safe levels of all kinds of nasties, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, biphenyls, PCBs, - you name it. But not smoke.

He said that second-hand smoke could account for as many as 3,600 deaths per year in the U.S. Notice the words "could" and "as many as".

The account of this press conference was reported by ABC News, which concluded with the statistic, apparently meant to add drama to the story, that each year 245 million Americans are exposed to second-hand smoke.

Okay, let's do the math. Dividing 3,600 by 245 million, we get .0000146 or .00146%. That's not even two thousandths of one percent.

As any statistician will tell you, that number is not only statistically insignificant, it pretty much proves the safety of second-hand smoke.

But all these studies and meta studies aside, remember that cigarette smoking was very early identified as causing lung cancer and heart disease for the very reason that smokers got it, and non-smokers didn't. If in fact second-hand smoke had had a similar effect on everyone, we would still be trying to figure out what was causing it.

Smoking bans are an agenda, and are not based in scientific fact.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

But all these studies and meta studies aside, remember that cigarette smoking was very early identified as causing lung cancer and heart disease for the very reason that smokers got it, and non-smokers didn't. If in fact second-hand smoke had had a similar effect on everyone, we would still be trying to figure out what was causing it.

Not really - the connection between smoking and lung cancer came in two separate but related prongs, one dealing with actual laboratory studies using live tissue (see: "tar-painting" studies on mice) and one dealing with epidemiological evidence (such as the NCI's Monograph series, found here.

Now, you're trying to say that epidemiological evidence should have been clouded or subverted completely if second-hand smoke also causes cancer. However, this is likely false, if you consider that active smoking is considerably more dangerous than passive (or second-hand) smoking - this increase in scale would likely be sufficient to find the smoking/cancer link on its own. This is not a sufficient condition to claim that passive smoking is not dangerous - after all, there are other kinds of lung cancer as well. Just because we can separate smoking from, say, asbestos exposure, this doesn't mean that asbestos no longer is a 'cause' of lung cancers (mesothelioma, to be precise, but the point remains).

It's not enough to get cute with a statement like "If second-hand smoke had an effect similar to smoking . . ." because that's not the issue. In fact, if passive smoking is even 1/100th as dangerous as active smoking, it becomes a public health hazard. The science isn't perfect, but to deny the effects of inhaling smoke for second-hand users is as laughable as denying the effects of the same action on active smokers.

[LeslieAGD]

I love the smoking bans. I hope Michigan adopts one soon.

[Tom Earp]

Oh, lest we forget, Radon causes cancer.

Now, how will the Government tax it?

Well first, the drug companies will bottle it, sell it after it gets approved by the FDA and some one will start making money from it.

If you feed lab mice enough water, how will that affect them?

[Drolefille]

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

(had to totally "google" it first, but) LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

[Drolefille]

I got my 8th grade classmates to sign a petition to ban DHMO.

I'm such a nerd.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

LOL I love jokes for nerds.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

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

[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!

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Oh, lest we forget, Radon causes cancer.

Now, how will the Government tax it?

Well first, the drug companies will bottle it, sell it after it gets approved by the FDA and some one will start making money from it.

If you feed lab mice enough water, how will that affect them?

[GeekyPenguin]

Maybe I can send this post to the Wisconsin legislature and they'll finally pass the ban so that stupid FIBs who can't make a good point will stop crossing the border.

[jmagnus]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

This second-hand smoke business is hysterical, and I mean that. People assume now that it's genuinely harmful.

In 2006 the U.S. Surgeon General called a press conference and practically pounded on the podium in order to impress upon us all that second-hand smoke is harmful, and that there is no safe level of exposure.

There are safe levels of all kinds of nasties, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, biphenyls, PCBs, - you name it. But not smoke.

He said that second-hand smoke could account for as many as 3,600 deaths per year in the U.S. Notice the words "could" and "as many as".

The account of this press conference was reported by ABC News, which concluded with the statistic, apparently meant to add drama to the story, that each year 245 million Americans are exposed to second-hand smoke.

Okay, let's do the math. Dividing 3,600 by 245 million, we get .0000146 or .00146%. That's not even two thousandths of one percent.

As any statistician will tell you, that number is not only statistically insignificant, it pretty much proves the safety of second-hand smoke.

But all these studies and meta studies aside, remember that cigarette smoking was very early identified as causing lung cancer and heart disease for the very reason that smokers got it, and non-smokers didn't. If in fact second-hand smoke had had a similar effect on everyone, we would still be trying to figure out what was causing it.

Smoking bans are an agenda, and are not based in scientific fact.

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jmagnus

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.

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:

Originally Posted by jmagnus

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.

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.

[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.