Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:15:06 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

OK. I'll bite.

BRG wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here are
some statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS
People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases
as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand
smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that
secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.

Oh dear, not that old chestnut again. You really are gullible
aren't you?

Absolutely. There are actually only 3996 toxic chemicals in cigarette
smoke. Four of them are safe.

OK, for the hard of thinking, lets go through it one thing at a time;

"SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS" Indeed it does,
but at what dose? You don't know do you? Basic rule of toxicology
'the poison is in the dose'. May I remind you that many other
things also contain many toxic chemicals.

Just because there are other toxins in the environment does not
justify exposing people to more because of a drug addiction.

"People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

Clearly riduculous. Smokers must absorb the majority of the toxins,
or smoking would have no adverse affect on them. Therefore smoke
diluted by the smoker cannot have the same effect.

There is no evidence for this. If smokers absorb enough toxins
through their filters to harm themselves it proves nothing about the
level of toxins absorbed by people nearby.

I rather think it does. Smoke dilued by the smoker and then further diluted
in the air is clearly not the same as being an active smoker. Thus the
accusation that "People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same
diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

As a matter of interest, non smokers also develop lung cancer.
Before you trot out the Roy Castle argument you should know that non
smokers develop an entirely different form of cancer in a copletely
different part of the lung.

Where's the evidence for this?

In any medical text book.

"It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths
each year"

Indeed it is. Estimated. 'Thousands' is an interesting term.
There are 'official' figures for the number of deaths caused by
passive smoking. The UK Guvmint claim either 9,000 or 11,000 in the
UK (depends which department you listen to). The EU claim 16,000
Europeans (which includes the UK) every year. I'll leave you to
spot the anomaly in the figures.

So 9,000 is acceptable and 16,000 is not? Even the lowest figure is
horrendous.

The figures have no credible basis whatsoever. They are made up to support
an argument. Since there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim
the RASF's [1] make the figurs up.

That statement shows just how ignorant you are of the facts - if you
have kids yourself and you smoke in the house - then work it out for
yourself!

Well strangely enough we designated the kitchen (with two extractor
fans) as our smoking area simply because they didn't like the smell.

So your neighbours get it instead?

I've never liked them :-)

Any smoke not absorbed by us is then diluted into the air. Look up
'diluted' if still confused.

Alas it displays that the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge.
Who is next? Drinkers? Bacon sarnie eaters? Drivers? Fat people?
You?

So we should let anyone do anything they like, no matter the consequences?

If people choose to smoke it is their decision. If we had 'smoking' venues
no one else would be affected.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257