On 7/3/2016 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:42:09 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.

The problem is to the anti-smoking crowd, the smell of smoke IS second
hand smoke.

No, the smell of smoke is third hand smoke, and third hand smoke causes
the same illnesses as first or secondhand smoke.



When you have real, scientific proof of that, not some extrapolated guesses
from loons, let us know.

We've had this discussion and I've already "LET" you "KNOW". I provided
many links to scientific studies (proof).

If you want to actually discuss what the articles have to say, I'm good
with that, but don't waste my time if all you can do is make adolescent
comments like you just made above. I am totally prepared to argue this
topic, and have done so previously many times, and those who take the
opposing side usually just GIVE UP - they either don't or can't respond
to the evidence, or they resort to ad homs as their main argument.

Subject: Where should smoking be illegal?
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:25:09 -0500
Message-ID:


http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/49332

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten... c=relevance&r

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...+local +token

--
Maggie