Why is secondhand smoke not considered a form of assault? (accuse, bias)
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.
-haven't read this thread, but FWIW: I once did a "Fermi Solution" (estimate based on magnitudes) for the passive smoke question. It turned out a bartender working 8 hr shifts, 5 days a week in an average sized, smokey bar room would have to work there for ~1000 yrs to be exposed to as much carcinogen as a 1 ppd smoker over 40 yrs--and remember that not all smokers get cancer or heart disease. Is passive smoke a problem?
It's always bad policy to argue religion, so I'll leave now.
-haven't read this thread, but FWIW: I once did a "Fermi Solution" (estimate based on magnitudes) for the passive smoke question. It turned out a bartender working 8 hr shifts, 5 days a week in an average sized, smokey bar room would have to work there for ~1000 yrs to be exposed to as much carcinogen as a 1 ppd smoker over 40 yrs--and remember that not all smokers get cancer or heart disease. Is passive smoke a problem?
It's always bad policy to argue religion, so I'll leave now.
"For each cigarette smoked, a nonsmoking employee inhales:
* as much benzene as one who has smoked six cigarettes;
* as much 4-aminobiphenyl as one who has smoked 17 cigarettes; and
* as much N-nitrosodimethylamine as one who has smoked 75 cigarettes."
"For each cigarette smoked, a nonsmoking employee inhales:
* as much benzene as one who has smoked six cigarettes;
* as much 4-aminobiphenyl as one who has smoked 17 cigarettes; and
* as much N-nitrosodimethylamine as one who has smoked 75 cigarettes."
References at the link.
Your first link is to the "help with smoking" site - and doesn't give any of its sources - I'm not even sure who owns the site.
Your second link is to a study nearly 20 years old. That said here, is the last bit of the article:
However, more research is needed to achieve more accurate and precise estimates of the relations between questionnaire-reported amount of smoking and indoor air marker concentrations, since
most of the health effect studies have based ETS exposure assessment on questionnaires.
When better estimates are obtained, information on the distribution of ETS exposure
levels in different occupational settings can be better used for assessing health risks due
to workplace ETS exposure.
Your first link is to the "help with smoking" site - and doesn't give any of its sources - I'm not even sure who owns the site.
There is contact information if you wish to find out who owns the site and ask for sources.
Do you have any references to refute anything said in the article?
Having been involuntarily exposed to cigarette smoke in the past I find the level of exposure described to be totally believable.
Quote:
Your second link is to a study nearly 20 years old. That said here, is the last bit of the article:
However, more research is needed to achieve more accurate and precise estimates of the relations between questionnaire-reported amount of smoking and indoor air marker concentrations, since
most of the health effect studies have based ETS exposure assessment on questionnaires.
When better estimates are obtained, information on the distribution of ETS exposure
levels in different occupational settings can be better used for assessing health risks due
to workplace ETS exposure.
Yes, it is old.
The statement is the same "we need more research" tag at the end of most studies.
Do you have a source that disproves the levels of exposure I quoted? The reference for that is at the end of the article.
Uhm...I tried clicking on the contact info link - as is typical, it's just an email form...no actual info.
And no...don't have time to refute the hundreds of statements in the first link - very bad of them to do all that research and not cite a single one.
And we all know a sample size of 1 is purely anecdotal - why even mention it.
That's what I said. If you want to know who owns the site or get references, you may contact them. That's what the email form is for. I used the site as a reference for only one fact: the equivalence between actually smoking and secondhand smoke in terms of the number of cigarettes smoked for a nonsmoker in a very smoky environment. An estimate of four cigarettes per two hours seems reasonable based on my personal experience. That is not a "sample of 1"; it is my opinion of the validity of the number cited in contrast to the poster I responded to. That estimate results in an exposure much higher than that poster was claiming.
What we inevitably come back to is that smokers are in such a deep state of denial about the hazards of cigarette smoke to themselves and others that they are desperate to disbelieve any evidence that shows that, yes, secondhand smoke is dangerous. That enables them to rationalize their own smoking and their desire to be able to smoke around other people who do not want to be exposed to it.
"For each cigarette smoked, a nonsmoking employee inhales:
* as much benzene as one who has smoked six cigarettes;
* as much 4-aminobiphenyl as one who has smoked 17 cigarettes; and
* as much N-nitrosodimethylamine as one who has smoked 75 cigarettes."
References at the link.
Wrong. The smoker first inhales all the chemicals in the smoke in each breath, concentrating them in his ~2L lungs, then exhales them into the room where they disperse over the volume of the room-- let's say 10ft x 20 ft x 20 ft = 4000 sq ft or ~113,000 L. The smoker, in between puff is still inhaling ambient, "contaminated" air like the non-smoking bartender.. The bartender is breathing air contaminates diluted by a factor of 56.000.
In short, the chain smoker is exposed to ( ["x" contaminates/ 2L] + x/113,000L) while the passive exposure is only x/113,000 for each cigarette smoked.
I think in my original calculation, I estimated 20 smokers in the bar smoking 3 /hr, or 240 cigarettes in an 8 hr shift. 240x/113,000 is only about 0.002 "x" in each shift
edited to finish the calc-- 5 shifts/wk, 50 wks /yr = equivalent contaminant exposure about the same as smoking 1/2 cigarette per year. QED BFD
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 07-19-2017 at 03:36 PM..
Uhm...I tried clicking on the contact info link - as is typical, it's just an email form...no actual info.
And no...don't have time to refute the hundreds of statements in the first link - very bad of them to do all that research and not cite a single one.
And we all know a sample size of 1 is purely anecdotal - why even mention it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
That's what I said. If you want to know who owns the site or get references, you may contact them. That's what the email form is for. I used the site as a reference for only one fact: the equivalence between actually smoking and secondhand smoke in terms of the number of cigarettes smoked for a nonsmoker in a very smoky environment. An estimate of four cigarettes per two hours seems reasonable based on my personal experience. That is not a "sample of 1"; it is my opinion of the validity of the number cited in contrast to the poster I responded to. That estimate results in an exposure much higher than that poster was claiming.
What we inevitably come back to is that smokers are in such a deep state of denial about the hazards of cigarette smoke to themselves and others that they are desperate to disbelieve any evidence that shows that, yes, secondhand smoke is dangerous. That enables them to rationalize their own smoking and their desire to be able to smoke around other people who do not want to be exposed to it.
"For each cigarette smoked, a nonsmoking employee inhales:
* as much benzene as one who has smoked six cigarettes;
* as much 4-aminobiphenyl as one who has smoked 17 cigarettes; and
* as much N-nitrosodimethylamine as one who has smoked 75 cigarettes."
References at the link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
Your first link is to the "help with smoking" site - and doesn't give any of its sources - I'm not even sure who owns the site.
Your second link is to a study nearly 20 years old. That said here, is the last bit of the article:
However, more research is needed to achieve more accurate and precise estimates of the relations between questionnaire-reported amount of smoking and indoor air marker concentrations, since
most of the health effect studies have based ETS exposure assessment on questionnaires.
When better estimates are obtained, information on the distribution of ETS exposure
levels in different occupational settings can be better used for assessing health risks due
to workplace ETS exposure.
So tiresome...I'm NOT emailing to find out the sponsor of a site who doesn't cite references. Very weak on your part - and you, who are always so concerned that a source not be biased, much less giving us a website spewing "facts" with nothing to back it up.
I was referring to anecdotal when you said that your own experience backed up these numbers. That means nothing to me as you have no particular expert skills or knowledge in this area.
I've never said that second hand smoke is harmless....many pages ago I provided information saying the effects have been overestimated. And you persist is saying how harmful it is to walk outside and pass by a smoker. Sorry - there are many things that will kill you faster than that...and many things that will stink up your clothes more, for that matter.
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.
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.
