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.
]Nor have you provided proof that there is a safe level of exposure to tiny little ropes burning on birthday cakes at McDonald's. Yet no one sane is seeking to ban them. Nor have you provided proof that there is a safe level of exposure to sunshine, and yet no one is banning patio dining "to protect the workers."Do I believe there are absolutely "safe" levels of any of the above? Not necessarily. But I DO believe there are crazy people out there who worry about such things if there's enough grant money being offered to do so.
And you wrote:
I wonder who you blame the rest of the sloppy antismoking research on Suzy? The lazy medical journal editors who don't check the research as carefully as I do? Or perhaps the lazy peer reviewers who simply pat each other on the back so their own lazy research gets peer-passed and published by the lazy editors? Or perhaps the lazy people who defend and promote such research and its results without checking it out themselves?
Remember the lazy editors at the British Medical Journal who concluded that the research showing there was no effect of smoking bans on heart attack rates didn't add to what was already generally known? I don't remember if this is one of my references that you decided wasn't worth reading, but I'll reference it again just in case:
You then go on to quote from what you believe to be the "proper" reference that you suddenly had handy (You'll note that I'm not using the quote function here so you won't need to explain again that these are not your own words that I'm criticizing.):
"Awake hamsters were exposed for 5 min to the mainstream smoke of one cigarette (2R1 research cigarette), inducing nicotine, cotinine, and carboxyhemoglobin plasma levels comparable to levels found in human smokers. In control animals (n = 7), CS exposure elicited the rolling and subsequent adhesion of fluorescently stained leukocytes to the endothelium of arterioles and postcapillary venules. Leukocyte/endothelium interaction was preceded by an early rise in xanthine oxidase activity and intravascular hemolysis."
Suzy, note the phrase "comparable to levels found in human smokers."
In other words, "levels that were 100 to 1,000 to perhaps even 10,000 times greater than the levels Antismokers worry about when they're screaming for smoking bans everywhere" (And note, just in case you're confused, those ARE my own words despite the quotation marks.)
Hamster physiology is the same as human physiology eh? How about dogs? I'm sure my dog would just LOVE a few chocolate bars ... maybe 1,000 to 10,000 of them?
Well, at least the sun went down. Now all I have to worry about is getting skin cancer from that deadly level of starlight out there!
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden
Trimac, banning smoking can be a bigger fire hazard: hidden smoking without proper fire-safety devices like ashtrays is far more hazardous. Go back over the news stories on fires in the last ten years and check out the increasing numbers of fire-deaths caused by the intentional disabling of smoke alarms after bans are instituted. Smoking never normally sets those things off, but once a ban is in place smokers become paranoid about them (because they might face eviction or a $500 "fine" if somehow they DID set one off) and disable them.
Should the smokers who do that be excused? Of course not. But if it's actual fire safety rather than social engineering that you're concerned about it then you should work with Free Choice groups to get rid of the mandated bans.
Well here at least smoke alarms are mandatory in hotels smoking or not. They shouldn't be getting rid of the fire alarms. It's the hotel's fault.
If more people smoke in hotel rooms the risk will be higher. Besides, smoke soot, tar and all those chemicals stain the room. I don't want to stay in a hotel room that stinks of smoke. I don't want to feel like I'm in some bar.
Silly question. I smoke because I enjoy it. People do all sorts of things that are hazardous to their health to varying degrees because they enjoy doing them.
Suzy, Question:
What gives YOU and others like you in general, the right to expose non-drinkers to highly volatile carcinogenic ethyl alcohol? (Note: According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer that's "carcinogenic in HUMANS" -- not just in nude hairless golden-eyed hamsters with Twinkies on top.) Or what give you the right to demand that workers suffer under blistering carcinogenic solar radiation simply because you enjoy basting your Melanomas along with your Margaritas on a restaurant patio?
Answer (to all three):
Common sense, and the use of science -- instead of its abuse.
You mean the people who are too lazy to do the referencing for their own research or the people who war too lazy to peer-review it properly? Or maybe the editors who are too lazy to check it and just go ahead and publish it?
Try checking out what slipped by the editors at the BMJ in the Helena study:
Read my Rapid Responses titled "Independently Confirmed?,""Helena, 100 Days," and "Helena 1,000 Days," at:
Yes, I know. And hamsters are just SO much closer to human beings. Especially genetically mutated ones. I'm even considering dating a rather cute hamster I ran into at the pub the other night. She assures me she doesn't mind my smoking... she rather likes it in fact.
PR, Suzy was responding to a string of general comments about the health effects of secondary smoke. Yes, she went into some possibly excessive detail and cited some seemingly sloppy research, but it was largely in response to my request that such claims be backed up. If the demand for eliminating smoking rooms in hotels is based upon claims that there is sound research out there indicating their need, then it's not a deflection to present attempts at such research or to offer criticisms of it. Nor do I feel it's a deflection to place such claimed risks within the proper context of real life decision-making.
Soooo.... I stand by my somewhat humorous observation.
PR, Suzy was responding to a string of general comments about the health effects of secondary smoke. Yes, she went into some possibly excessive detail and cited some seemingly sloppy research, but it was largely in response to my request that such claims be backed up. If the demand for eliminating smoking rooms in hotels is based upon claims that there is sound research out there indicating their need, then it's not a deflection to present attempts at such research or to offer criticisms of it. Nor do I feel it's a deflection to place such claimed risks within the proper context of real life decision-making.
Soooo.... I stand by my somewhat humorous observation.
Well since we are basing things off of what we feel, I more than feel that you are wrong.
But I'll address it at least once here since you asked.
I enjoy the taste, the physical sensation of consciously inhaling and exhaling something a bit different than regular air (think for a moment about the difference between drinking carbonated vs. regular water: the taste isn't all that different: the enjoyment comes from the different sensation on your mouth/throat/mucousal glands and such), watching a person you are with enjoy smoking while at the same time sharing a similar enjoyment yourself, the mild enjoyment of playing with your smoke in various small ways as you exhale it.
All small things, but together, and when combined with the enjoyable stimulus or relaxation engendered by the nicotine, overall very enjoyable. Again, think about comparing it to something like drinking coffee: most folks enjoy the caffeine as well as the taste. Many folks enjoy the feeling of hot coffee or iced coffee rather than tepid coffee despite the fact that they have the same caffeine and a similar taste.
If nicotine were the only aspect of smoking, you'd see a much wider use of NRT products. Note that one of the currently most popular NRTs, the e-cigarette, comes closest to providing a similar experience and sensation. Note also that although it seems to likely have a "risk" of literally about 1/1,000th that of smoking it has been viciously attacked by the FDA at the pretty obvious behest of the Big Pharma companies that have been pushing smoking bans in favor of their own NicoGummyPatchyProducts. Note that the FDA is considering e-cigarettes as "tobacco products" while NOT considering premium cigars to be "tobacco products"! Try justifying THAT sort of DoubeThink! LOL!
Things are not as simple and clear as the antismoking advocates would have you believe.
Well since we are basing things off of what we feel, I more than feel that you are wrong.
Heehee... fair enough. And as I've said earlier in this thread I believe, I have no problem at all with people who want to get smoking, perfume, whiskey, (etc etc anything else) banned from someplace by the decision of the owner of that place simply because they don't like the smell. That's their feeling about it, and thar ent nuttin' no one kin doos abaht et! I usually only jump in when I see the science being misused or peoples' rights being taken away by the government. (OK, Occasionally I will criticize a private business for its decision to fire people who smoke at home or that bans smoking rather than consider reasonable comfort alternatives, but the science and the rights arguments tend to be my main focus.)
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.
