U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 02-12-2012, 01:22 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,373,501 times
Reputation: 7641

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The exact question OP posed was, "Which is worse, cigarette smoke or car exhaust?" Note the title to the thread.
Let me clue you in, that was the Subject line of the thread, the specific question the OP posed in the body of the thread (which is what normal people reply to) was:

"Ok, well, if your kids had to spend time in a garage with the door closed with me chain smoking inside or with you and your car running, which would you choose?"

Quote:
I believe I answered that.
I hate to disagree with you but no you didn't, all you did was side-track this thread bringing up pollutants.

Quote:
When someone tested that question in a closed garage, the cigarettes produced more pollutants.
That's funny, I just re-read the OP a couple of times and nowhere in the OP do I see the question which produced more pollutants...

Again, please tell me which magic browser you are using to see what is written between the lines, thanks.

Ummmm, which someone would that be? And do I need your magic browser to view the study?

Reality check: the person(s) in a sealed garage with a vehicles motor running will die...

In the same scenario the one(s) in a sealed garage with a chain smoker will not.

In both of the scenarios above everyone will die when all the oxygen is used up (and the vehicles engine will stall).

PS: This is the second time I've asked you which magic browser you are using, I'd appreciate a reply. Obviously what I am using (Firefox 10.0.1) is not displaying between the lines text.

TIA

Last edited by plwhit; 02-12-2012 at 01:41 PM..

 
Old 02-12-2012, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,264 posts, read 28,068,309 times
Reputation: 28716
Default Cigarette smoke has a higher concentration of carbon monoxide than automobile exhaust

http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/ce3.pdf

"Students are usually surprised to discover that cigarette smoke has a much higher CO [carbon monoxide]concentration than does the exhaust from a clean, well maintained vehicle."

The next study measured the effect of exposure to environmental cigarette smoke on blood flow.

The researcher measured carbon monoxide levels of 30 to 35 parts per million in a smoking room.

The Effects of Acute Passive Smoke Exposure on Endothelium-Dependent Brachial Artery Dilation in Healthy Individuals

How much carbon monoxide is hazardous?

Carbon Monoxide Levels - How Much is too Much?

"For healthy adults CO becomes toxic when it reaches a level higher than 35 ppm (parts per million) with continuous exposure over an eight hour period."

So it is possible to get toxic levels of carbon monoxide from cigarette smoke.

The question in the original post:

"Ok, well, if your kids had to spend time in a garage with the door closed with me chain smoking inside or with you and your car running, which would you choose?" Note that no time interval is specified.

Give the chain smoker some time and he could generate toxic levels of carbon monoxide --- and more total pollutants than the car.

For the record, the lethal level of carbon monoxide is about 800 parts per million. I concede that the smoker would probably pass out himself before he could generate that.

By the way, it does not take much "reading between the lines" to infer from the original post that the poster believes motor vehicle exhaust produces more pollution than cigarettes. Because people spend more time on average indoors than outdoors, and because efforts to reduce outdoor pollution have been effective, fewer deaths are attributable to outdoor pollution. About 1% of smog in Los Angeles, CA is cigarette smoke Smokers Add to Los Angeles Smog - NYTimes.com
 
Old 02-12-2012, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,264 posts, read 28,068,309 times
Reputation: 28716
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
There is obviously no hard data for these statistics, do you know how they arrive at such numbers?
Why do you think there iare no hard data? If people were going to make up numbers, why not make up even worse numbers?

The statistics are generated from deaths from illnesses that are caused by outdoor air pollution (mainly asthma and respiratory diseases) and deaths from the illnesses that smokers get in higher numbers than people who do not smoke, such as lung and other cancers, chronic obstructive lung disease (emphysema), and cardiovascular disease.

A smoker has a 50% chance of dying from a disease caused by his smoking and will die on average 14 years sooner than someone who does not smoke.

Statisticians can count these illnesses. That is where the numbers come from.
 
Old 02-12-2012, 06:58 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,373,501 times
Reputation: 7641
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Why do you think there iare no hard data? If people were going to make up numbers, why not make up even worse numbers?

The statistics are generated from deaths from illnesses that are caused by outdoor air pollution (mainly asthma and respiratory diseases) and deaths from the illnesses that smokers get in higher numbers than people who do not smoke, such as lung and other cancers, chronic obstructive lung disease (emphysema), and cardiovascular disease.

A smoker has a 50% chance of dying from a disease caused by his smoking and will die on average 14 years sooner than someone who does not smoke.

Statisticians can count these illnesses. That is where the numbers come from.
These "studies" are a dime a dozen, here's one: Air pollution not correlated with asthma hospitalizations

Soot and smog were not correlated with emergency admissions for asthma at a large Los Angeles hospital during 2010-2011.

Air pollution not correlated with asthma hospitalizations, reports

I missed that, what browser are you using to reads between the lines?
 
Old 02-12-2012, 07:00 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,373,501 times
Reputation: 7641
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/ce3.pdf

"Students are usually surprised to discover that cigarette smoke has a much higher CO [carbon monoxide]concentration than does the exhaust from a clean, well maintained vehicle."
Students are the most gullible portion of society aren't they...

We all see how statisticians can manipulate numbers to mean whatever they want don't we?
 
Old 02-12-2012, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,264 posts, read 28,068,309 times
Reputation: 28716
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
CO kills, it's as simple as that. It bonds to the hemoglobin in your blood preventing it from carrying oxygen. Exposure to even low levels over a very long period of time can lead to detrimental health effects and if the concentration is high enough death because it will build up in your system. There is very little the medical community can do for someone that has been poisoned by CO even with immediate medical attention. The primary cure is time.


It's effective enough it was one method used by the Nazi's in death camps, to even suggest cigarette smoke is more harmful than car exhaust in a closed environment is ridiculous.
So smokers should not smoke, right?

They are inhaling carbon monoxide with every puff.

A smoker managed to get her blood levels of carboxyhemoglobin (carbon monoxide attaches to hemoglobin, the oxygen carrying molecule, irreversibly, blocking its ability to carry oxygen) to toxic levels just by smoking:

Recurrent carbon monoxide poisoning from cigare... [Am J Med Sci. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

She got her levels to above 24%, with 25% being toxic.

"It is generally accepted that heavy smokers have COHb [carboxyhemoglobin] levels <10% to 15% (Ernst and Zibrak, N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1603-8). The authors report a 48-year-old woman with significant tobacco abuse who presented with COHb levels as high as 24.2% in the face of tobacco use."

Maybe not so ridiculous, huh? Think about the amount of secondhand smoke she was producing when she got her blood level that high.

Treatment of carbon monoxide poisoning is possible:

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning-Treatment Overview
 
Old 02-12-2012, 07:18 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,373,501 times
Reputation: 7641
Since this thread appears to be hijacked, how's this?

Some asthma caused by environmental bacteria?

Could some cases of asthma actually be caused by an allergic reaction to a common environmental bacteria? New research findings published in the Journal of Leukocyte Biology suggests that this idea may not be as far-fetched as it seems. In a research report appearing in the February 2012 print issue, researchers show a link between common environmental bacteria and airway inflammation. Specifically, their research suggests that some strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cause white blood cells to produce very high levels of histamine, which in turn leads to inflammation, a hallmark symptom of asthma.

Some asthma caused by environmental bacteria? | JunkScience.com
 
Old 02-12-2012, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,385 posts, read 37,689,162 times
Reputation: 22518
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead View Post
It's really hard to tell, there are no good studies on either without influence. Car emissions are bad but diluted so hard to compare, smoking studies are weird, if you die of practically anything and smoked or lived with a smoker they list it as a smoking related death so who would really know? What would be nice is to have some actually relative studies on anything. lol

I'm guessing the car but can't be sure.
Exactly. Over the years, I've seen this same kind of "science" used with other things that are politically incorrect at any given time (thus the quotes around science, because, sorry, folks, that's not science, that's social engineering).

I will say, having seen it over and over over the decades, we seem to be really going over the top with it lately - practically everything is being designated as bad for us and going to kill us.

Heck, folks, BREATHING is going to kill you, sooner or later, because if you live, you die. Can't escape it no matter how much you think you can.

Here's some accurate information for you.
 
Old 02-12-2012, 08:11 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,373,501 times
Reputation: 7641
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Exactly. Over the years, I've seen this same kind of "science" used with other things that are politically incorrect at any given time (thus the quotes around science, because, sorry, folks, that's not science, that's social engineering).

I will say, having seen it over and over over the decades, we seem to be really going over the top with it lately - practically everything is being designated as bad for us and going to kill us.

Heck, folks, BREATHING is going to kill you, sooner or later, because if you live, you die. Can't escape it no matter how much you think you can.

Here's some accurate information for you.
Amen and well said, just in case you missed this:

New Hampshire considers perfume ban for state employees

http://www.boston.com/Boston/dailydose/2012/02/new-hampshire-considers-perfume-ban-for-state-employees/JEftAGZy1Cdme70WYsI1QI/index.html (http://www.boston.com/Boston/dailydose/2012/02/new-hampshire-considers-perfume-ban-for-state-employees/JEftAGZy1Cdme70WYsI1QI/index.htmlMaking - broken link)

Making smokers the bad guys is just the start, sound familiar?

Quote:
“Many people have violent reactions to strong scents.”
 
Old 02-12-2012, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,264 posts, read 28,068,309 times
Reputation: 28716
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
These "studies" are a dime a dozen, here's one: Air pollution not correlated with asthma hospitalizations

Soot and smog were not correlated with emergency admissions for asthma at a large Los Angeles hospital during 2010-2011.

Air pollution not correlated with asthma hospitalizations, reports

I missed that, what browser are you using to reads between the lines?

I believe we are talking about carbon monoxide and cars vs. cigarettes, not asthma.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top