Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 28 to 30 of 30

Thread: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

  1. #28
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Wrestling Terp I'll repost this information for you on the study about second hand smoke done at the request of the government.



    In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

    Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

    The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

    CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

    "We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

    "We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

    "Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

    "Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

    "For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

    "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

    "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    "At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

    "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

    "Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

    "It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."
    If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

    ~Paul Wellstone~

  2. #29

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Wow, I posted a lot of links for studies from the past 4 or 5 years. Got anything new, or do you have to rely on one or two old ones that support your premise while the body of evidence that demonsrates the health risks of second hand smoke continues to build?

    I love the source of your vaunted chart, the World renowned "nycclash.com" That wouldn't serve as a viable reference for a middle school science paper. Not even an author's name. If that is a good source I have some post office box addresses for diploma mills for ya!

    Frankly I don't know if nicotine is the cause, I'm not a pro-smoking zealot like you. I was just looking at the JHU article posted in the blog your love to cite and reported their conclusions. You are the one hung up on the nicotine levels.

    As for your NEJM reference, got a link? Not sure if you understand the role of medical and research journals. They print a lot of studies. Here is another from NEJM

    "Background Previous studies have suggested a reduction in the total number of hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome after the enactment of legislation banning smoking in public places"

    Here is yet another from the United Kingdom, thus debunking your US conspiracy theory:

    http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk...othnov2004.pdf

    "CONCLUSION
    The evidence published since 1998 reinforces the conclusions of the SCOTH report published at that time:
    • The causal effect of exposure to SHS on risk of lung cancer has been confirmed by further original studies and by the authoritative review conducted by IARC.
    The pooled increased relative risk remains in good agreement with that estimated by Hackshaw, Law and Wald at 24%.
    • The causal effect of exposure to SHS on risk of ischaemic heart disease has been confirmed and the weight of evidence is stronger now than at the time of the SCOTH report. The increased risk associated with exposure to SHS is in the order of 25%.
    • There is a strong link between exposure to SHS and adverse health effects in children. There is no reason to revise SCOTH’s conclusions relating to a number of causal effects."

    I'm sure you can find some blog or reference that says the earth is flat. Have at it.

    Here you go, you should feel very comfortable here:
    http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm
    Last edited by WrestlingTerp; 09-17-2008 at 06:17 PM.
    "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!?

  3. #30
    Olympic Champ RYou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    8,376

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by bluestater View Post
    Me neither! But we're wrong, Bonnie. OSHA says so.
    OSHA is not saying it is "safe", it is saying that when the content is measured, the materials are below the allowable action levels. All the means is that an employer is not obligated to provide any additional control over the exposure. The are acceptable exposure levels for a whole host of carcingens including benzene, asbestos, and even lead. It does not mean there is no risk.
    Life's not the breaths you take, the breathing in and out that gets you through the day ain't what it's all about. It's the moments that take your breath away.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •