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.
Respond to the discussions concerning TLV and PEL of individual toxic components and you will understand the discussion we are having. You claim "huge", but the fact is none of the chemicals in SHS we are discussing are reaching dangerous levels, and this is according to the same agencies you would reference to claim that they are.
This is the problem. SHS is not an element, it is a combination of many elements to which the facts concerning PEL and TLV are clearly defined by those agencies as to their harmful levels which according to those agencies when we evaluate each specific element is not harmful in the amounts people can encounter physically, yet they turn around and claim SHS is harmful anyway? Do you see the problem with their conclusions and the support they use to make such a claim?
We are talking about each element within SHS which ranges from many types of "possibly" harmful chemicals, most notably benzene which we already specified that is far less in SHS exposure than what an average diet of fruits and nuts would achieve.
So explain to us how the PEL and TLV levels are reached for each of these chemicals with SHS in such an environment? You do realize that in order to surpass already administrative stated levels of safe toxic chemical exposure, one would have to place themselves in contact wish SHS in an environment that is not practical to real world exposure? That is, how many 10x10x10 no ventilation rooms do you think a person enters that has 100's of cigarettes (in many cases of the chemicals TLV thousands and hundreds of thousands) burning to which someone would even remotely approach the toxic level of exposure for that given chemical?
The problem here is we are taking the data of the very agencies to which are claiming harmful exposure and instead of simply taking their word and treating SHS as a single element, we are looking at the chemical breakdown of each element to which those agencies classify individually and showing that their own data doesn't support their claim.
Maybe you could explain the problem here, because I am a bit confused how each chemical individually is safe at a certain level, but then SHS with those elements are somehow all of a sudden above the safe levels? It seems to defy logical thinking and most certainly defies scientific analysis.
nomander I am not claiming any info from any agency. I don't really have a dog in this fight other then I am amazed in this day and age some people won't buy into the fact that smoking is harmful to your health. you have to be foolish or addicted. it is kinda like being pregnant...you can't be a little pregnant. combine that with the question asked in the op about children stuck in a car with a person smoking. if not unhealthy for the children it is most certainly rude and inconsiderate. are you comfortable with children being inside a closed car with someone smoking?
am I understanding right in that the "agency" looks at SHS as a whole and you and other defenders of SHS not being very harmful want each element of the SHS looked at instead? why work so hard trying to restore to a better image the degree to which smoking is harmful?
I don't know, I think you may be a member of the Communist Party. *chuckle*
Heehee... actually, I had a very wonderful lady friend at one point in my life who tried dragging me to a couple of Marxist study groups. I fell asleep during them... and so did our relationship. Ahhh welll....
am I understanding right in that the "agency" looks at SHS as a whole and you and other defenders of SHS not being very harmful want each element of the SHS looked at instead? why work so hard trying to restore to a better image the degree to which smoking is harmful?
Hoth, I may have missed it, but did you answer my question about whether you'd admit that breathing burning rope smoke was harmful? And if it is, would you then support banning birthday candles at McDonald's? Or do you admit that "qualifiers" actually DO come into play in making such decisions?
The question of whether smoking cigarettes is harmful is very different than the question of whether normal exposures to SHS are harmful. I think smoking cigarettes is harmful. I'll respond to you on SHS if you'll tell me whether your think that the smoke from burning ropes is harmful.
I am sure hanging out in front of burning rope or in front of a BBQ is not great for ones health if you are inhaling it. as I said previous lungs were designed to inhale air. the cleaner the better.
Again, this thread isn't talking about whether smoking is good or bad or harmful or not. the thread is about if it is a good or bad thing if a child is in a car with an adult smoking. Conflating the two things, smoking for the smoker and exposure to smoke by the nonsmoker, is an argumentation trick -- you may not be meaning to use it as such, not sure it is a "trick" but hard to separate the two as in reality it does effect both the smoker and the non smoker to a degree but it's a common one used by Antismokers all over the world. If you're truly interested in seeing exactly what I think on the subject, read the first four sentences at:
If you have any specific, substantive criticisms of any of the research cited and arguments expressed there please let me know. I promise I won't mind.
I don't care enough about the subject to go tit for tat. I will go along with the general consensus that smoking either FHS or SHS is not something I want to be around if I can help it. I have no problem with people who smoke as long they are not in my air space I don't care. I also think someone who smokes in a car with kids in it is selfish and stupid, regardless if the SHS is harmful to the kids or not.
Hoth, I may have missed it, but did you answer my question about whether you'd admit that breathing burning rope smoke was harmful? And if it is, would you then support banning birthday candles at McDonald's? Or do you admit that "qualifiers" actually DO come into play in making such decisions?
yep I did answer. I don't believe in banning anything that I can think of off the top of my head. If you want to make the debate about our civil rights to do this and that in a free country and consider regulation against smoking as bad, then that is another argument all together. yes I can see where when government start to regulate something it can worry one of the famous slipperly slope.
nomander I am not claiming any info from any agency. I don't really have a dog in this fight other then I am amazed in this day and age some people won't buy into the fact that smoking is harmful to your health. you have to be foolish or addicted. it is kinda like being pregnant...you can't be a little pregnant. combine that with the question asked in the op about children stuck in a car with a person smoking. if not unhealthy for the children it is most certainly rude and inconsiderate. are you comfortable with children being inside a closed car with someone smoking?
I am not saying that any of the chemicals in SHS aren't "possibly" harmful, I am saying that at the levels one is exposed to, they do not reach harmful levels. Think of radiation. People freak out about it, there are movies of all the dangers, your hair falling out, and people getting extremely sick, but did you know we are exposed to radiation from just about everything? Point is not that it is radiation, it is the levels we are exposed to. So in the case of SHS, it is the "levels" to which we are exposed to and that is the issue. If one is going to get upset about SHS, they might as well freak out and place themselves in a clean room (and even then, that isn't going to suffice their delusions) as toxin exposure is a part of life, it is how much that is the real issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui
am I understanding right in that the "agency" looks at SHS as a whole and you and other defenders of SHS not being very harmful want each element of the SHS looked at instead? why work so hard trying to restore to a better image the degree to which smoking is harmful?
Because it is the right thing to do. Lying is lying. Misinformation do not serve the better good, the end does not justify the means. Just because someone thinks smoking is bad for an individual does not validate their distortions to get it removed. If you have to lie to get someone to agree, it is because your position is flawed in the first place. They know they can't get people on board to ban/tax/regulate smoking if it was simply (it hurts the individual that makes the choice), they need people to see it as a threat to others. Only then can they get people on board to justify infringing on the choice of others.
This is the problem with people who think like this. They aren't concerned people trying to make society better, they are arrogant busy bodies attempting to form society to a position they find acceptable. If that means lying, cheating, and stealing, then to them... it is acceptable because the end justifies the means.
We need to get back to where we respect the individual and their choice to decide for themselves. If they want to put their hand in the fire, by all means, its their choice, they will deal with the consequences. should they be informed of the facts? Absolutely, but those facts need to be actual facts, not half-truths attempting to purport some agenda. Otherwise, we simply end up with ignorant people being driven around like sheep doing the work for the controllers who lie to them.
I have asthma, second hand smoke causes me to have an asthma attack. One thing I am glad about is that very few people in California smoke, IMO smoking is a waste of money with no positive benefits but if you want to smoke, please do it away from other people and don't act like a jerk if someone doesn't want to breathe your smoke. I have had people around me throw a fit when they light up a cigarette and I start coughing.
I don't have a problem with anyone smoking as long as they are not bothering anyone else, it's your life, do what you want but don't act like it's your right to smoke wherever you want.
Actually, somewhere in my files, I have a sad news story of a teen who was trying to hide the scent of smoke on her clothes from her mother but died from a reaction to over-spraying herself with Febreeze or somesuch in an enclosed space -- either a closet or a small bathroom.
Fabreeze would kill me even in a much larger room. When I was working at this one place, I'd come back from a very short smoke break and the person sitting next to me would complain about how I smelled. So she'd whip out her Fabreeze and start spraying it. Every time she did I would have a severe alergic reaction, end up going home because I couldn't breath and end up in the urgent care. When I complained to her and then to our supervisor both of them told me I needed to stop smoking and then I wouldn't have to worry about the Fabreeze.
Is it more harmful than drinking milk? The last I checked, 40 years of constant daily exposure in poorly ventilated 1950s - 1970s style smoking conditions was claimed to give an increased lung cancer ratio of 1.19 (about one extra chance in a thousand -- after 40 years of such exposure.) Meanwhile I think that 8 oz of whole milk per day gave a ratio of 1.62 : over three times as "dangerous."
Ya know, I was really trying to think of the least harmful thing on the planet.... I knew milk would probably not fit the bill.. maybe should have said breast milk, instead of cows milk!
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.
