Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:51:30 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
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,"
See my previous paragraph.
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.
Actually there are several types of lung cancer. Smoking is usually
the cause of one type but not always. You cannot conclude that
passive smoking is safe. Being exposed to cigarrette smoke increases
the risk of many diseases. This has been proved "beyond reasonable
doubt" in courts.
"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 :-)
Because they don't smoke?
Any smoke not absorbed by us is then diluted into the air. Look up
'diluted' if still confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/denial
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.
The people who work there would be affected.
If there was anything to affect them of course.
'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't
worry me.' - Professor Sir Richard Doll (who discovered the link between
active smoking & lung cancer using credible scientific methods).
--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257
M.