On 7/3/2016 12:37 PM, trader_4 wrote:

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:07:24 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

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).



Funny how that could be as this is the first time I've seen this discussed
here.


Short memory? You responded to the "Where should smoking be ..." thread
at least 17 times from 5/28/16 - 5/29/16, and 9 of your responses in
that thread were you responding to about this same discussion.

Should I post the msg ids?




And obviously you don't understand the difference in providing a link
to a study, where all you can read is that the study was done, but you can't
read the actual study and it's results. Almost all of those links you just
provided, that's all there is. Example:

"The effects of sorption processes on dynamic ETS organic gas concentrations and potential exposures were studied in a carpeted and furnished 50-m3 room ventilated at 0.6 h-1. Ten cigarettes were machine-smoked on six of every seven days over four weeks. Concentrations of ETS-specific tracers and regulated toxic compounds were quantified during daily smoking, post-smoking and background periods. Potential exposures were calculated by period and day. Large sorption effects were observed for the widely used tracers 3-ethenylpyridine and nicotine, and for several toxic compounds including naphthalene and cresol isomers. Short-term adsorption to indoor surfaces reduced concentrations and potential exposures during smoking, while later reemission increased concentrations and exposures hours after smoking ended. Concentrations during nonsmoking periods rose from day to day over the first few weeks, presumably from increased reemission associated with increased sorbed mass concentrations. For sorbing compounds, more than half of daily potential exposures occurred during nonsmoking periods."

Just how big of an idiot do you have to be to think that is "proof" of
anything other than they did a study? WTF is wrong with you? Why would
anyone waste any time looking at anything you say after that?

Another one of your studies is in a closed car. I didn't say anything about
smoking in a closed car, I said just the smell of smoke, eg as you're
walking into a building.





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.


How can one discuss what these articles have to say, when you didn't
provide what they have to say, just that a study was done? Why do you
waste our time? I'm not the adolescent here, even a child knows the
difference between doing a study and the results.

Moron.




You can't even remember responding to this very discussion on May.

Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??

--
Maggie