Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm back, lost a minor irrelevant battle due to insufficient research, intend to win the war
OK I've been trying to find reasonably unbiased studies that show carbon monoxide levels via exposure to second hand smoke versus air pollution. But prior to that...
First, here is a study that links carbon monoxide to hearing dysfunction:
Link The interesting part of this study is that the levels were within the range deemd "safe" by the governent, between nine and 50 parts per million.
Here is a study that shows the recommended ventilation for "smoking areas" in restuarants and office buildings is vastly insufficient to reduce 45 year mortality levels to the "de minimis risk level"
Link
This is a very good candian pdf that talks logically about second hand smoke, the effects and impact on non-smokers:
Link
And here's what the EPA concludes about second hand smoke:
The report concludes that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as secondhand smoke -- is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children.
ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.
ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.
ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.
ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.
But all the previous stuff was just good info. Here's the best data I could google up to disprove Vic's assinine assertion that outdoor air pollution is the same as that tiny "whiff" of smoke you get from a smokers "bad habit".
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the risk of developing cancer from exposure to second-hand smoke is about 57 times greater than the total risk posed by all outdoor air contaminants regulated under U.S. environmental law.
Source: Cunningham, Rob. Smoke & Mirrors - The Canadian Tobacco War. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1996.
So Vic stutters "should be ban fast food"? No, it doesn't interfere with my personal rights to breathe non-toxic air.
So Vic mumbles "Do we ban cars?" No, but we do regulate their emissions. But as I've just shown, SHS is a much much more severe personal impact that air pollution.
Since, as Vic pointed out earlier, only states and localities can pass laws to ban it in public and in commerce. I will continue to lobby politically and with my pocketbook. Heck, I'd even vote democrat on this issue :beer: