Originally Posted by BonnieJ2

I don't need a study to know that second hand smoke can send my better half to the hospital.

Me neither! But we're wrong, Bonnie. OSHA says so.

Why do we need a second thread? Because the other got into so many tangents, replying to someone almost always meant offending someone else incorrectly.

I don't like talking about Metcalf ad nauseum on the college boards, that doesn't stop people from starting multiple threads about him.

Re: "ccbig"

cc is an abbrebviation for "carbon copy"

Okay, I know - NOT RELEVANT.

Originally Posted by JensenS

He's already asked, and I've already answered.

You obviously aren't Big, as you say the writing style at minimum would give it away.

Thank you for stopping that nonsense!

Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp

Its difficult to take a blog seriously that provides few direct links to the studies cited but rather cherry picks snippets to support an obvious bias. Most of the references are back to other articles in the blog, or to obviously biased libertarian links.

For example, it cites a Johns Hopkins study to support the hypothesis that second hand smoke is harmless, yet clicking on the link in the blog to the study shows the actual conclusion of the study:

http://www.jhsph.edu/global_tobacco/...ore_bars2.html

Did you read what the Hopkins link said? It measured Nicotine levels.


Here a fact about nicotine for you -

The carcinogenic properties of nicotine in standalone form, separate from tobacco smoke, have not been evaluated by the IARC, and it has not been assigned to an official carcinogen group. The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties.

**Nicotine is the addictive agent in tobacco not a known cancer causing agent.

The graph at the start of this thread dealt specifically with known cancer causing agents.

Nothing I found in the Hopkins study reputed the graph I posted at the bottom of the open statement of this thread.**

Initial results: As of Feb 22, 2007, the study protocol has been completed for a total of 5 bars and 12 employees. One of the 5 bars was a voluntary smoke-free establishment. In the remaining 4 bars, smoking was allowed. Air nicotine was detected in all the bars where smoking was allowed (range 2.1 to 16.9 ?g/m3). In the smoke-free bar, air nicotine concentrations were much lower (range 0.11 to 0.15 ?g/m3) and close to the limit of detection. In non-smoking employees working in bars where smoking was allowed, hair nicotine ranged from 0.7 to 6.1 ng/mg, documenting that workers in smoking bars are personally exposed to tobacco smoke by others. In the smoke-free bar, hair nicotine concentrations were below the limit of detection, documenting that smoke-free bars can provide complete protection to employees from exposure to secondhand smoke.

Here is what the JHU study reported about nicotine levels. I highlighted it to make it easier for you. Seems to me you are misreading the chart, or reading it the way you want it to read.

Now compare that to the large body of evidence that proves exposure to second hand smoke is a known health rish and the facts speak for themselves. Thank God Maryland law now mandates smoke-free establishments.

Your "facts" have proven to be pretty meaningless without significant supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp

Here is what the JHU study reported about nicotine levels. I highlighted it to make it easier for you. Seems to me you are misreading the chart, or reading it the way you want it to read.

Now compare that to the large body of evidence that proves exposure to second hand smoke is a known health rish and the facts speak for themselves. Thank God Maryland law now mandates smoke-free establishments.

Your "facts" have proven to be pretty meaningless without significant supporting evidence.

That is a erroneous conclusion considering no study has been done that concludes nicotine is a cancer causing agent.

Again, the chart they post does not point to any actual cancer causing agents.

Further, the bottom range of that scale- below a 3.0 is so low that the EPA declined to regulate high-voltage power lines because it said the RRs seldom exceeded 3.0

Ever hear of the New England Journal of Medicine?

"It is no wonder, therefore, that Dr. Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the world?s leading medical journals, says, ?As a general rule, we are looking for a relative risk of 3.0 or more.? Dr. Robt. Temple, director of drug evaluation for the FDA, says, ?My basic rule is if the relative risk isn?t at least 3 or 4, forget it.? And the EPA declined to regulate high-voltage power lines because it said the RRs seldom exceeded 3.0."

One of the people linked to the study you quoted is Professor Jonathan Samet. He states "Moving air in and out of buildings doesn't work, and neither do air filters; if someone is smoking somewhere in a building, other people in that building are likely being involuntarily exposed,"

That statement flies in the face of any common sense. How would gas masks work against chemical/biological agents if his statement was true?

There is a agenda at work here. The agenda is the profit that can be made by the drug companies.

Follow the trail outlined earlier in the posts I made.