GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 329,714
Threads: 115,665
Posts: 2,204,926
Welcome to our newest member, aleispetrovo785
» Online Users: 1,458
1 members and 1,457 guests
PGD-GRAD
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 01-11-2008, 10:35 AM
33girl 33girl is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hotel Oceanview
Posts: 34,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low C Sharp View Post
police power of the state. Just like the smoking ban.
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).
__________________
It is all 33girl's fault. ~DrPhil
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-11-2008, 12:55 PM
jmagnus jmagnus is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: From Rockford IL but go to school at Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Posts: 351
Send a message via AIM to jmagnus
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonoBN41 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-11-2008, 12:57 PM
KSig RC KSig RC is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl View Post
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'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).
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-11-2008, 01:10 PM
33girl 33girl is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hotel Oceanview
Posts: 34,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC View Post
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.
__________________
It is all 33girl's fault. ~DrPhil
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-11-2008, 01:20 PM
nittanyalum nittanyalum is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: location, location... isn't that what it's all about?
Posts: 4,206
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

Last edited by nittanyalum; 01-11-2008 at 01:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-11-2008, 02:32 PM
Drolefille Drolefille is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl View Post
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).
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.
__________________
From the SigmaTo the K!
Polyamorous, Pansexual and Proud of it!
It Gets Better
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-11-2008, 02:33 PM
KSig RC KSig RC is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmagnus View Post
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmagnus View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-11-2008, 02:39 PM
Low C Sharp Low C Sharp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 678
Quote:
wow, sieg heil.
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

Last edited by Low C Sharp; 09-20-2011 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-11-2008, 02:45 PM
AlphaFrog AlphaFrog is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Ozdust Ballroom
Posts: 14,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low C Sharp View Post
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.
__________________
Facile remedium est ubertati; sterilia nullo labore vincuntur.
I think pearls are lovely, especially when you need something to clutch. ~ AzTheta
The Real World Can't Hear You ~ GC Troll
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-11-2008, 02:45 PM
33girl 33girl is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hotel Oceanview
Posts: 34,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low C Sharp View Post
You have some nerve calling me a Nazi.
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.
__________________
It is all 33girl's fault. ~DrPhil
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-11-2008, 04:46 PM
Low C Sharp Low C Sharp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 678
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

Last edited by Low C Sharp; 09-20-2011 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-11-2008, 04:59 PM
33girl 33girl is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hotel Oceanview
Posts: 34,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low C Sharp View Post
Why don't you set me straight as to what you meant by "sieg heil"?
Why don't you set all of GC straight as to your real identity?
__________________
It is all 33girl's fault. ~DrPhil
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-11-2008, 05:04 PM
AKA_Monet AKA_Monet is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beyond
Posts: 5,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille View Post
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.
__________________
We thank and pledge Alpha Kappa Alpha to remember...
"I'm watching with a new service that translates 'stupid-to-English'" ~ @Shoq of ShoqValue.com 1 of my Tweeple

"Yo soy una mujer negra" ~Zoe Saldana
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-11-2008, 05:07 PM
AKA_Monet AKA_Monet is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beyond
Posts: 5,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low C Sharp View Post
You can't run a restaurant where you let rats crawl around in the cooler. It doesn't matter whether you warn all your customers about the presence of rats; it doesn't matter whether consumers have a choice between ratty and rat-free establishments; it doesn't matter whether science has shown definitive proof that rat droppings in food causes cancer. That restaurant is a nuisance and a danger to public health, and you have to close, period.

So where's your outrage about health inspection of restaurants and the infringement of the constitutional right to sell and buy filthy food? Maybe you realize that this kind of rule is comfortably within the police power of the state. Just like the smoking ban.
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...
__________________
We thank and pledge Alpha Kappa Alpha to remember...
"I'm watching with a new service that translates 'stupid-to-English'" ~ @Shoq of ShoqValue.com 1 of my Tweeple

"Yo soy una mujer negra" ~Zoe Saldana
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-11-2008, 05:17 PM
AKA_Monet AKA_Monet is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beyond
Posts: 5,092
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.
__________________
We thank and pledge Alpha Kappa Alpha to remember...
"I'm watching with a new service that translates 'stupid-to-English'" ~ @Shoq of ShoqValue.com 1 of my Tweeple

"Yo soy una mujer negra" ~Zoe Saldana
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Smoking Still? preciousjeni Chit Chat 62 12-29-2008 06:51 PM
Smoking Aces AKA2D '91 Alpha Kappa Alpha 6 01-29-2007 10:19 PM
thanks for smoking FSUZeta Entertainment 18 04-28-2006 02:12 PM
smoking? JMUduke Chit Chat 29 07-14-2002 08:24 PM
smoking CRMSNTiDEGRL717 Greek Life 24 04-12-2001 12:58 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.