This seems to be a point of ignorance...

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

That's exactly what Mosh and myself said a few posts ago, although I think the conditions might be a little more liberal than the ones you described.

Actually, no valid study has found a link in any other conditions. Everyone they claimed were harmed were those people exposed to daily heavy concentrations of smoke. (Workplace and/or home life) And one must remember that a person must have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, which is why even in smokers, a minority develop it. Same for heart diseae and just about every other type of cancer.

The dose makes the poison. Remember this. This is why we aren't all droping like flies from exposure to car and truck exhaust.

In short, your original conclusion based on the study you posted was alarmist, and wrong. And the study is pointless out of context. If you are now trying to deny you felt it meant non-smokers were more at risk from ETS than smokers were from smoking, you're lying.

There's no need for insults here. Regardless, I don't lie.

My "conclusion" was that non-smokers are at risk for developing health complications due to second hand smoke if exposed in the proper quantities.

Also, read the studies I posted a few minutes ago. Especially the EPA page. I think you might find them enlightening. Especially "The Threshold Theory"

Also, check this out:
http://www.stats.org/stories/lung_cancer_rates_mar08_06.htm

But what is the risk? According to American Lung Association, about 1 in 8 smokers die from lung cancer

and http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=669263

Lung cancer causes more deaths than the next three most common cancers combined (colon, breast and prostate). An estimated 162,460 deaths from lung cancer will occur in the United States during 2006.

Smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer in the United States. It is estimated that 90 percent lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. Other causes include radon, asbestos and air pollution.

An estimated 351,344 Americans are living with lung cancer. During 2006 an estimated 174,470 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

That's exactly what Mosh and myself said a few posts ago, although I think the conditions might be a little more liberal than the ones you described.

Actually, no valid study has found a link in any other conditions. Everyone they claimed were harmed were those people exposed to daily heavy concentrations of smoke. (Workplace and/or home life) And one must remember that a person must have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, which is why even in smokers, a minority develop it. Same for heart diseae and just about every other type of cancer.

The dose makes the poison. Remember this. This is why we aren't all droping like flies from exposure to car and truck exhaust.

In short, your original conclusion based on the study you posted was alarmist, and wrong. And the study is pointless out of context. If you are now trying to deny you felt it meant non-smokers were more at risk from ETS than smokers were from smoking, you're lying.

There's no need for insults here. Regardless, I don't lie.

My "conclusion" was that non-smokers are at risk for developing health complications due to second hand smoke if exposed in the proper quantities.

Also, read the studies I posted a few minutes ago. Especially the EPA page. I think you might find them enlightening. Especially "The Threshold Theory"

No, YOU read the threshold theory. Do it critically. Think VERY hard.

Can you see the spin? They say there is no proof there is a minimum exposure amount. Yet they do NOT say there is proof there is no minimum exposure amount. Only that there is no proof. However, every valid study suggests one.

As in all things: The dose makes the poison. To deny this is to deny reality.

I did not insult you. I merely pointed out the fact that it was OBVIOUS you at first thought the OP study meant ETS was more dangerous that first hand smoking.

 

[tfcmasta97]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Do we really need another second hand smoking thread?
The same exact arguments have been made at least 500 times in the past 7 years on this forum.

I knew 4 waitresses from Port Dover that died from second hand smoke. They all worked in bars.

Nice flamebait. Now do you have any actual facts to back that up? Mabey the medical reports that said cause of death was "second hand smoke"?

People dont die from 'second hand smoke' just like they dont die from 'bullets', they die from cancer, heart failure, massive blood loss etc.

And if you're too stupid to see the relation between those exposed to smoke and those who get cancer, you're too stupid to convince in the first place.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Amused
We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

I agree, but it is still worse than not breathing it in. It still stinks, it still gives me a head rush, dry mouth and dizziness.

I have no problem with people smoking except that they have to exhale.

If I drink too much and start puking in front of buildings so people have to walk through the mess and smell the vomit, there would be an uproar - especially if I and others did it multiple times a day so the smell and mess was there constantly.

This is what smokers do - it is almost impossible to avoid the smell within 10-20 feet of a well used smoker's corner.

Bummer.

Meanwhile, bad smells are a bane of life. As a non-smoker, I'd rather smell smoke than the obnoxious BO some people put off.

You may, or may not feel the same. It's irrelevant.

You've kicked them outside. Be happy with that and go on with your life.

This post epitomizes the problem I have with smokers. It is forced down our throat and we have no choice but to accept it. If we push back, we are starting down a "slippery slope" or are showing ourselves to be intolerant There is no negotiation - it is just take, accept it and move on.

I don't begrudge smokers their cigarettes, but they force me to walk through their stale air everytime I walk into or out off a building with very few exceptions.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Amused
We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

I agree, but it is still worse than not breathing it in. It still stinks, it still gives me a head rush, dry mouth and dizziness.

I have no problem with people smoking except that they have to exhale.

If I drink too much and start puking in front of buildings so people have to walk through the mess and smell the vomit, there would be an uproar - especially if I and others did it multiple times a day so the smell and mess was there constantly.

This is what smokers do - it is almost impossible to avoid the smell within 10-20 feet of a well used smoker's corner.

Bummer.

Meanwhile, bad smells are a bane of life. As a non-smoker, I'd rather smell smoke than the obnoxious BO some people put off.

You may, or may not feel the same. It's irrelevant.

You've kicked them outside. Be happy with that and go on with your life.

This post epitomizes the problem I have with smokers. It is forced down our throat and we have no choice but to accept it. If we push back, we are starting down a "slippery slope" or are showing ourselves to be intolerant There is no negotiation - it is just take, accept it and move on.

I don't begrudge smokers their cigarettes, but they force me to walk through their stale air everytime I walk into or out off a building with very few exceptions.

It's give and take. You no longer have to wallow in their stench while inside.

Take take take, that's all you do.

Seriously, though, you did make a major gain. To me, going through a cloud of smoke to enter a smoke free place is NO problem considering the alternative I grew up with.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

That's exactly what Mosh and myself said a few posts ago, although I think the conditions might be a little more liberal than the ones you described.

Actually, no valid study has found a link in any other conditions. Everyone they claimed were harmed were those people exposed to daily heavy concentrations of smoke. (Workplace and/or home life) And one must remember that a person must have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, which is why even in smokers, a minority develop it. Same for heart diseae and just about every other type of cancer.

The dose makes the poison. Remember this. This is why we aren't all droping like flies from exposure to car and truck exhaust.

In short, your original conclusion based on the study you posted was alarmist, and wrong. And the study is pointless out of context. If you are now trying to deny you felt it meant non-smokers were more at risk from ETS than smokers were from smoking, you're lying.

There's no need for insults here. Regardless, I don't lie.

My "conclusion" was that non-smokers are at risk for developing health complications due to second hand smoke if exposed in the proper quantities.

Also, read the studies I posted a few minutes ago. Especially the EPA page. I think you might find them enlightening. Especially "The Threshold Theory"

No, YOU read the threshold theory. Do it critically. Think VERY hard.

Can you see the spin? They say there is no proof there is a minimum exposure amount. Yet they do NOT say there is proof there is no minimum exposure amount. Only that there is no proof. However, every valid study suggests one.

As in all things: The dose makes the poison. To deny this is to deny reality.

I did not insult you. I merely pointed out the fact that it was OBVIOUS you at first thought the OP study meant ETS was more dangerous that first hand smoking.

You actually accused me of lying, overhpying, and have called my arguments "stupid" in various forms throughout this thread. But that's irrelevant.

It clearly states that there is a risk from practically ANY exposure. Low risk or not, there is still a risk. And the studies I posted have also effectively proved that in home/workplace environments where smoke is prevalent, the people in those environments develop health defects, more than likely due to 2nd hand smoke (unless they are smokers themselves).

Also, you may call my thoughts "alarmist" but they do have some backing. Besides, if anything this attitude will lead me to avoid 2nd hand smoke more effectively, reducing what small risk I have.

Now, I have wasted about 4 hours of my life on this thread (about 1.5 of which was attempting to convince you). I now leave to attend to my life. I've got some Calc HW to do, along with a considerable amount of Chemistry. Not to mention my GF and Borat tonight.

My arguments are reasonably sound. Unless I'm personally insulted again I will not be responding to this thread.

Cianara people.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

That's exactly what Mosh and myself said a few posts ago, although I think the conditions might be a little more liberal than the ones you described.

Actually, no valid study has found a link in any other conditions. Everyone they claimed were harmed were those people exposed to daily heavy concentrations of smoke. (Workplace and/or home life) And one must remember that a person must have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, which is why even in smokers, a minority develop it. Same for heart diseae and just about every other type of cancer.

The dose makes the poison. Remember this. This is why we aren't all droping like flies from exposure to car and truck exhaust.

In short, your original conclusion based on the study you posted was alarmist, and wrong. And the study is pointless out of context. If you are now trying to deny you felt it meant non-smokers were more at risk from ETS than smokers were from smoking, you're lying.

There's no need for insults here. Regardless, I don't lie.

My "conclusion" was that non-smokers are at risk for developing health complications due to second hand smoke if exposed in the proper quantities.

Also, read the studies I posted a few minutes ago. Especially the EPA page. I think you might find them enlightening. Especially "The Threshold Theory"

No, YOU read the threshold theory. Do it critically. Think VERY hard.

Can you see the spin? They say there is no proof there is a minimum exposure amount. Yet they do NOT say there is proof there is no minimum exposure amount. Only that there is no proof. However, every valid study suggests one.

As in all things: The dose makes the poison. To deny this is to deny reality.

I did not insult you. I merely pointed out the fact that it was OBVIOUS you at first thought the OP study meant ETS was more dangerous that first hand smoking.

You actually accused me of lying, overhpying, and have called my arguments "stupid" in various forms throughout this thread. But that's irrelevant.

It clearly states that there is a risk from practically ANY exposure. Low risk or not, there is still a risk. And the studies I posted have also effectively proved that in home/workplace environments where smoke is prevalent, the people in those environments develop health defects, more than likely due to 2nd hand smoke (unless they are smokers themselves).

Also, you may call my thoughts "alarmist" but they do have some backing. Besides, if anything this attitude will lead me to avoid 2nd hand smoke more effectively, reducing what small risk I have.

Now, I have wasted about 4 hours of my life on this thread (about 1.5 of which was attempting to convince you). I now leave to attend to my life. I've got some Calc HW to do, along with a considerable amount of Chemistry. Not to mention my GF and Borat tonight.

My arguments are reasonably sound. Unless I'm personally insulted again I will not be responding to this thread.

Cianara people.

It's really sad that you are denying the obvious with the proof in various threads on this forum of your mistaken assumptions based on this study. You CLEARLY assumed that the study meant ETS was more dangerous than first hand smoking.

But that's OK.

Meanwhile, to deny that the dose makes the poison, and to claim that ANY exposure is dangerous is absurd, alarmist propaganda. If ETS were dangerous at ANY exposure level, it would be the only substance on earth with that dubious BS honor.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

That's exactly what Mosh and myself said a few posts ago, although I think the conditions might be a little more liberal than the ones you described.

Actually, no valid study has found a link in any other conditions. Everyone they claimed were harmed were those people exposed to daily heavy concentrations of smoke. (Workplace and/or home life) And one must remember that a person must have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, which is why even in smokers, a minority develop it. Same for heart diseae and just about every other type of cancer.

The dose makes the poison. Remember this. This is why we aren't all droping like flies from exposure to car and truck exhaust.

In short, your original conclusion based on the study you posted was alarmist, and wrong. And the study is pointless out of context. If you are now trying to deny you felt it meant non-smokers were more at risk from ETS than smokers were from smoking, you're lying.

There's no need for insults here. Regardless, I don't lie.

My "conclusion" was that non-smokers are at risk for developing health complications due to second hand smoke if exposed in the proper quantities.

Also, read the studies I posted a few minutes ago. Especially the EPA page. I think you might find them enlightening. Especially "The Threshold Theory"

No, YOU read the threshold theory. Do it critically. Think VERY hard.

Can you see the spin? They say there is no proof there is a minimum exposure amount. Yet they do NOT say there is proof there is no minimum exposure amount. Only that there is no proof. However, every valid study suggests one.

As in all things: The dose makes the poison. To deny this is to deny reality.

I did not insult you. I merely pointed out the fact that it was OBVIOUS you at first thought the OP study meant ETS was more dangerous that first hand smoking.

You actually accused me of lying, overhpying, and have called my arguments "stupid" in various forms throughout this thread. But that's irrelevant.

It clearly states that there is a risk from practically ANY exposure. Low risk or not, there is still a risk. And the studies I posted have also effectively proved that in home/workplace environments where smoke is prevalent, the people in those environments develop health defects, more than likely due to 2nd hand smoke (unless they are smokers themselves).

Also, you may call my thoughts "alarmist" but they do have some backing. Besides, if anything this attitude will lead me to avoid 2nd hand smoke more effectively, reducing what small risk I have.

Now, I have wasted about 4 hours of my life on this thread (about 1.5 of which was attempting to convince you). I now leave to attend to my life. I've got some Calc HW to do, along with a considerable amount of Chemistry. Not to mention my GF and Borat tonight.

My arguments are reasonably sound. Unless I'm personally insulted again I will not be responding to this thread.

Cianara people.

It's really sad that you are denying the obvious with the proof in various threads on this forum of your mistaken assumptions based on this study. You CLEARLY assumed that the study meant ETS was more dangerous than first hand smoking.

But that's OK.

Meanwhile, to deny that the dose makes the poison, and to claim that ANY exposure is dangerous is absurd, alarmist propaganda. If ETS were dangerous at ANY exposure level, it would be the only substance on earth with that dubious BS honor.

*Sigh* Way to draw it out Amused

Alright ATOT. Who has a better idea of what I was thinking? Me or Amused?

Sorry if I was misinterpreted.

Also, I stated that the risk could be low. It could be 1/1000000, but it's still there. The EPA agrees.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

That's exactly what Mosh and myself said a few posts ago, although I think the conditions might be a little more liberal than the ones you described.

Actually, no valid study has found a link in any other conditions. Everyone they claimed were harmed were those people exposed to daily heavy concentrations of smoke. (Workplace and/or home life) And one must remember that a person must have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, which is why even in smokers, a minority develop it. Same for heart diseae and just about every other type of cancer.

The dose makes the poison. Remember this. This is why we aren't all droping like flies from exposure to car and truck exhaust.

In short, your original conclusion based on the study you posted was alarmist, and wrong. And the study is pointless out of context. If you are now trying to deny you felt it meant non-smokers were more at risk from ETS than smokers were from smoking, you're lying.

There's no need for insults here. Regardless, I don't lie.

My "conclusion" was that non-smokers are at risk for developing health complications due to second hand smoke if exposed in the proper quantities.

Also, read the studies I posted a few minutes ago. Especially the EPA page. I think you might find them enlightening. Especially "The Threshold Theory"

No, YOU read the threshold theory. Do it critically. Think VERY hard.

Can you see the spin? They say there is no proof there is a minimum exposure amount. Yet they do NOT say there is proof there is no minimum exposure amount. Only that there is no proof. However, every valid study suggests one.

As in all things: The dose makes the poison. To deny this is to deny reality.

I did not insult you. I merely pointed out the fact that it was OBVIOUS you at first thought the OP study meant ETS was more dangerous that first hand smoking.

You actually accused me of lying, overhpying, and have called my arguments "stupid" in various forms throughout this thread. But that's irrelevant.

It clearly states that there is a risk from practically ANY exposure. Low risk or not, there is still a risk. And the studies I posted have also effectively proved that in home/workplace environments where smoke is prevalent, the people in those environments develop health defects, more than likely due to 2nd hand smoke (unless they are smokers themselves).

Also, you may call my thoughts "alarmist" but they do have some backing. Besides, if anything this attitude will lead me to avoid 2nd hand smoke more effectively, reducing what small risk I have.

Now, I have wasted about 4 hours of my life on this thread (about 1.5 of which was attempting to convince you). I now leave to attend to my life. I've got some Calc HW to do, along with a considerable amount of Chemistry. Not to mention my GF and Borat tonight.

My arguments are reasonably sound. Unless I'm personally insulted again I will not be responding to this thread.

Cianara people.

It's really sad that you are denying the obvious with the proof in various threads on this forum of your mistaken assumptions based on this study. You CLEARLY assumed that the study meant ETS was more dangerous than first hand smoking.

But that's OK.

Meanwhile, to deny that the dose makes the poison, and to claim that ANY exposure is dangerous is absurd, alarmist propaganda. If ETS were dangerous at ANY exposure level, it would be the only substance on earth with that dubious BS honor.

*Sigh* Way to draw it out Amused

Alright ATOT. Who has a better idea of what I was thinking? Me or Amused?

Sorry if I was misinterpreted.

Also, I stated that the risk could be low. It could be 1/1000000, but it's still there. The EPA agrees.

Deny, deny, deny. You should have been a politician.

Meanwhile, so you are falling for the propaganda that ETS is the only substance known to man to be deadly at any dose?

You honestly think there is any risk at all from catching an occational faint whiff of smoke outside?

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

That's exactly what Mosh and myself said a few posts ago, although I think the conditions might be a little more liberal than the ones you described.

Actually, no valid study has found a link in any other conditions. Everyone they claimed were harmed were those people exposed to daily heavy concentrations of smoke. (Workplace and/or home life) And one must remember that a person must have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, which is why even in smokers, a minority develop it. Same for heart diseae and just about every other type of cancer.

The dose makes the poison. Remember this. This is why we aren't all droping like flies from exposure to car and truck exhaust.

In short, your original conclusion based on the study you posted was alarmist, and wrong. And the study is pointless out of context. If you are now trying to deny you felt it meant non-smokers were more at risk from ETS than smokers were from smoking, you're lying.

There's no need for insults here. Regardless, I don't lie.

My "conclusion" was that non-smokers are at risk for developing health complications due to second hand smoke if exposed in the proper quantities.

Also, read the studies I posted a few minutes ago. Especially the EPA page. I think you might find them enlightening. Especially "The Threshold Theory"

No, YOU read the threshold theory. Do it critically. Think VERY hard.

Can you see the spin? They say there is no proof there is a minimum exposure amount. Yet they do NOT say there is proof there is no minimum exposure amount. Only that there is no proof. However, every valid study suggests one.

As in all things: The dose makes the poison. To deny this is to deny reality.

I did not insult you. I merely pointed out the fact that it was OBVIOUS you at first thought the OP study meant ETS was more dangerous that first hand smoking.

You actually accused me of lying, overhpying, and have called my arguments "stupid" in various forms throughout this thread. But that's irrelevant.

It clearly states that there is a risk from practically ANY exposure. Low risk or not, there is still a risk. And the studies I posted have also effectively proved that in home/workplace environments where smoke is prevalent, the people in those environments develop health defects, more than likely due to 2nd hand smoke (unless they are smokers themselves).

Also, you may call my thoughts "alarmist" but they do have some backing. Besides, if anything this attitude will lead me to avoid 2nd hand smoke more effectively, reducing what small risk I have.

Now, I have wasted about 4 hours of my life on this thread (about 1.5 of which was attempting to convince you). I now leave to attend to my life. I've got some Calc HW to do, along with a considerable amount of Chemistry. Not to mention my GF and Borat tonight.

My arguments are reasonably sound. Unless I'm personally insulted again I will not be responding to this thread.

Cianara people.

It's really sad that you are denying the obvious with the proof in various threads on this forum of your mistaken assumptions based on this study. You CLEARLY assumed that the study meant ETS was more dangerous than first hand smoking.

But that's OK.

Meanwhile, to deny that the dose makes the poison, and to claim that ANY exposure is dangerous is absurd, alarmist propaganda. If ETS were dangerous at ANY exposure level, it would be the only substance on earth with that dubious BS honor.

*Sigh* Way to draw it out Amused

Alright ATOT. Who has a better idea of what I was thinking? Me or Amused?

Sorry if I was misinterpreted.

Also, I stated that the risk could be low. It could be 1/1000000, but it's still there. The EPA agrees.

Deny, deny, deny. You should have been a politician.

Meanwhile, so you are falling for the propaganda that ETS is the only substance known to man to be deadly at any dose?

You want the last word Amused? I couldn't give a sh!t. Please stop twisting my words and respond to this thread. I hope this satisfies you. If not, go look at some pr0n.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: irishScott

You want the last word Amused? I couldn't give a sh!t. Please stop twisting my words and respond to this thread. I hope this satisfies you. If not, go look at some pr0n.

No, I want you to admit you made a foolish assumption, and are still doing so.

Try thinking for yourself instead of reading propaganda and mindlessly believing it.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

You want the last word Amused? I couldn't give a sh!t. Please stop twisting my words and respond to this thread. I hope this satisfies you. If not, go look at some pr0n.

No, I want you to admit you made a foolish assumption, and are still doing so.

Try thinking for yourself instead of reading propaganda and mindlessly believing it.

It CAN be deadly at practically any level. Doesn't mean it IS deadly at any level. Reading comprehension FTL.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

You want the last word Amused? I couldn't give a sh!t. Please stop twisting my words and respond to this thread. I hope this satisfies you. If not, go look at some pr0n.

No, I want you to admit you made a foolish assumption, and are still doing so.

Try thinking for yourself instead of reading propaganda and mindlessly believing it.

It CAN be deadly at practically any level. Doesn't mean it IS deadly at any level. Reading comprehension FTL.

Oh, so now it's semantics. Dangerous implies danger. To say ETS is dangerous at ANY level is absurd. And, yet again, it would be the only substance known to man to be so.

Stop trying to wiggle your way out of this. The claim is patently absurd.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

You want the last word Amused? I couldn't give a sh!t. Please stop twisting my words and respond to this thread. I hope this satisfies you. If not, go look at some pr0n.

No, I want you to admit you made a foolish assumption, and are still doing so.

Try thinking for yourself instead of reading propaganda and mindlessly believing it.

It CAN be deadly at practically any level. Doesn't mean it IS deadly at any level. Reading comprehension FTL.

Oh, so now it's semantics. Dangerous implies danger. To say ETS is dangerous at ANY level is absurd. And, yet again, it would be the only substance known to man to be so.

Stop trying to wiggle your way out of this. The claim is patently absurd.

It's not semantics. It's a clear difference in meaning. Welcome to language.

And to justify that statement for you, when writing an engineering proposal, you typically have a PDR (Preliminary Design Review) and a CDR (Critical Design Review)

In the first, you say your design "CAN" do so and so.

In the Second, you say your design "WILL" do so and so.

 

[gerwen]

Thanks for finally learning how to quote only a relevant portion of the conversation.
Of course after breaking my mouse wheel, and borking the thread width.


Any poison can be brought down to a low enough dose or concentration, that it is harmless.
Nicotine is a perfect example of this. In pure form, a small chunk (less than a gram) of it held in your bare hand for a short period of time is enough to kill.

There's a but to this. Many poisons have a cumulative effect. They aren't flushed from the body, so repeated exposure, months or even years apart can build up to a dangerous dose.
Heavy metals for example.

However, you're talking about the carcinogenic properties of cigarette smoke, and i believe that is a different animal, and not a poison discussion at all.

 

[MrPickins]

I was trying to read to read this thread, but the nested quotes have the page format screwed...

Nobody needs to see the same text repeated ad-nauseum. Please guys, edit your posts.

 

[irishScott]

Lol I guess it did kinda get outa hand. Sry guys.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: zinfamous
then why use child-like personal attacks when responding to other posts that you haven't read all fo the way through?

Child - like?

I called you a tard - did it hurt your fragile ego?

it's not about my pride; merely about your lack of comprehension and ability to argue in a constructive manner. you've just proved my point

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

Not true. Nicotine is not like crack or variations of other drugs that addict on the first encounter. In addition, the levels of exposure are smaller than if we were inhaling directly from the cigarette. In addition, non-smokers do not typically associated pleasure or relaxation with the head rush that comes from inhalation so they are very unlikely to find themselves addicted.

that's the point Amused was making about failed logic. again with the reading comprehension.....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Amused
We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

I agree, but it is still worse than not breathing it in. It still stinks, it still gives me a head rush, dry mouth and dizziness.

I have no problem with people smoking except that they have to exhale.

If I drink too much and start puking in front of buildings so people have to walk through the mess and smell the vomit, there would be an uproar - especially if I and others did it multiple times a day so the smell and mess was there constantly.

This is what smokers do - it is almost impossible to avoid the smell within 10-20 feet of a well used smoker's corner.

Bummer.

Meanwhile, bad smells are a bane of life. As a non-smoker, I'd rather smell smoke than the obnoxious BO some people put off.

You may, or may not feel the same. It's irrelevant.

You've kicked them outside. Be happy with that and go on with your life.

This post epitomizes the problem I have with smokers. It is forced down our throat and we have no choice but to accept it. If we push back, we are starting down a "slippery slope" or are showing ourselves to be intolerant There is no negotiation - it is just take, accept it and move on.

I don't begrudge smokers their cigarettes, but they force me to walk through their stale air everytime I walk into or out off a building with very few exceptions.

True, but likewise we have forced them outside to enjoy their cancer-flavored ecstasy. You have to see both sides of the situation here. It's not only about you; and it never will be. If you live in Chicago, or some similar place that is ass-cold in the winter, you might think that smokers being condemned to smoke outside is a pretty severe punishment

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

You want the last word Amused? I couldn't give a sh!t. Please stop twisting my words and respond to this thread. I hope this satisfies you. If not, go look at some pr0n.

No, I want you to admit you made a foolish assumption, and are still doing so.

Try thinking for yourself instead of reading propaganda and mindlessly believing it.

It CAN be deadly at practically any level. Doesn't mean it IS deadly at any level. Reading comprehension FTL.

Umm...actually Irish...that is the exact opposite of your original claims here, and in the previous thread where this "discussion" began. Your'e argument was that secondary smoke IS deadly, and more-so than primary smoking.

 

[IGBT]

Text


Consequences of Benzo[a]pyrene
A huge number of studies over the previous three decades have documented links between benzo[a]pyrene and cancers. It has been more difficult to link cancers to specific benzo[a]pyrene sources, especially in humans. Researchers at Kansas State University recently discovered a link between vitamin A and emphysema in smokers. Benzo[a]pyrene was found to be the link to the deficiency, since it induces vitamin A deficiency in rats.

On October 18, 1996, a study was published that provided the first true molecular evidence conclusively linking components in tobacco smoking to lung cancer. A chemical found in tobacco smoking, benzo[a]pyrene, was shown to cause genetic damage in lung cells that is identical to the damage observed in the DNA of most malignant lung tumours.

A 2001 National Cancer Institute study found levels of benzo[a]pyrene to be significantly higher in foods that were cooked well-done on the barbecue, particularly steaks, chicken with skin, and hamburgers. Japanese scientists showed that cooked beef contains mutagens, chemicals that are capable of altering the chemical structure of DNA.

 

[Vic]

I can't believe that people like the OP buy into this false propaganda "science." You realize that smokers are surrounded by their own secondhand smoke, right?

And it's true, nicotine is not like crack or heroin when it comes to addiction. It's far worse. Nicotine is the single most addictive drug on the planet. 90% of all people who try smoking just once become addicted to it. No other drug even comes close.

 

[ForumMaster]

wasn't this common knowledge? i guess not. this is why i hate smokers. you wanna kill yourself? fine. i didn't do anything wrong to you and you have no right to make me breath your second hand smoke.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
wasn't this common knowledge? i guess not. this is why i hate smokers. you wanna kill yourself? fine. i didn't do anything wrong to you and you have no right to make me breath your second hand smoke.

Blah blah blah read the thread as you obviously didn't if you don't like smokers then don't patronize establishments that allow smoking otherwise it's nobody's fault but your own