Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#521
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:42:00 -0500, notX
wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:02 PM, Muggles wrote: [snip] Not dangerous?? How do you know 10 times that amount isn't in a puff of secondhand smoke? Still the "one instance" fallacy? As if "one puff" is all there is. [snip] The preeminent safety organization in the government sets daily limits for toxins and the concentrations in second hand smoke does not even bump the needle. I gave the example of Chlorine, one of the deadliest war gasses ever unleashed on mankind yet getting a little whiff when you pour bleach into your washer is harmless and they put it in your drinking water. Typical municipal water runs about 3ppm chlorine and that is far higher than any of the toxins in cigarette smoke. How many thousands of gallons of water do you use in a year? |
#522
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 07/06/2016 18:43, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 06/05/2016 07:42 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] And why do you believe you have the right to say what's right for SOMEONE ELSE'S child? Smacking doesn't harm, it instils DISCIPLINE, something nobody has any more. [snip] "Discipline" involves respect, NOT beating. Indeed, we never smacked our kids and they are very respectful and kind, also very polite. You can't force respect, that has to be earned. -- Bod |
#523
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:45:56 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 06/05/2016 07:59 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] Which hurts a child more? A quick smack? Or deprivation of TV for a week? It's the TV. It lasts a week not 10 seconds. Another "one instance" fallacy. The cumulative effect of HUNDREDS of these is MUCH worse. And the cumulative effect of lots of other things is even more much worse. Anyway, get things into perspective, it's a smack we're talking about, something which hurts slightly for a few seconds and leaves no bruise. You must be getting confused with punches to the face. |
#524
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:43:39 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 06/05/2016 07:42 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] And why do you believe you have the right to say what's right for SOMEONE ELSE'S child? Smacking doesn't harm, it instils DISCIPLINE, something nobody has any more. [snip] "Discipline" involves respect, NOT beating. There are many forms of discipline, don't be a bigot and assume yours is the only way. Funny how it used to be commonplace. I'd love to see you go back in time and tell everyone that everyone is wrong and you're right. |
#525
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 19:30:10 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 07/06/2016 18:43, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:42 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] And why do you believe you have the right to say what's right for SOMEONE ELSE'S child? Smacking doesn't harm, it instils DISCIPLINE, something nobody has any more. [snip] "Discipline" involves respect, NOT beating. Indeed, we never smacked our kids and they are very respectful and kind, also very polite. You can't force respect, that has to be earned. Of course you can, you just chose to use a different method. I know plenty people who were brought up with smacking, and they turned out fine. I also know plenty people who always ignored respect etc, and would only have responded to smacks. Since they didn't get any, they turned into useless layabouts. |
#526
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 06/07/2016 01:32 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:45:56 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:59 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] Which hurts a child more? A quick smack? Or deprivation of TV for a week? It's the TV. It lasts a week not 10 seconds. Another "one instance" fallacy. The cumulative effect of HUNDREDS of these is MUCH worse. And the cumulative effect of lots of other things is even more much worse. Anyway, get things into perspective, it's a smack we're talking about, something which hurts slightly for a few seconds and leaves no bruise. You must be getting confused with punches to the face. Do you fail to understand the meaning of "cumulative effect"? One smack isn't much, THOUSANDS are. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The fact that there is a general belief in a future life is no evidence of its truth." [Clarence Darrow] |
#527
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
Stormin Mormon wrote:
.... I'd sure like to have smoking banned every where. So regulation that libs would impose sucks until it fits your agenda? |
#528
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:20:11 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote: On 06/07/2016 01:32 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:45:56 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:59 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] Which hurts a child more? A quick smack? Or deprivation of TV for a week? It's the TV. It lasts a week not 10 seconds. Another "one instance" fallacy. The cumulative effect of HUNDREDS of these is MUCH worse. And the cumulative effect of lots of other things is even more much worse. Anyway, get things into perspective, it's a smack we're talking about, something which hurts slightly for a few seconds and leaves no bruise. You must be getting confused with punches to the face. Do you fail to understand the meaning of "cumulative effect"? One smack isn't much, THOUSANDS are. How about 3 or 4? Or 5-7 over a childhood? I found that was enough to make my kids well-behaved. They never had tantrums in stores or restaurants. Well, not more than one or two. |
#529
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:20:11 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 06/07/2016 01:32 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:45:56 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:59 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] Which hurts a child more? A quick smack? Or deprivation of TV for a week? It's the TV. It lasts a week not 10 seconds. Another "one instance" fallacy. The cumulative effect of HUNDREDS of these is MUCH worse. And the cumulative effect of lots of other things is even more much worse. Anyway, get things into perspective, it's a smack we're talking about, something which hurts slightly for a few seconds and leaves no bruise. You must be getting confused with punches to the face. Do you fail to understand the meaning of "cumulative effect"? One smack isn't much, THOUSANDS are. Cumulative effect only applies to things that last, like arsenic poisoning. If you were smacked yesterday, it has no effect today. -- Space is an illusion, disk space doubly so. |
#530
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:28:12 +0100, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:20:11 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/07/2016 01:32 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:45:56 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:59 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] Which hurts a child more? A quick smack? Or deprivation of TV for a week? It's the TV. It lasts a week not 10 seconds. Another "one instance" fallacy. The cumulative effect of HUNDREDS of these is MUCH worse. And the cumulative effect of lots of other things is even more much worse. Anyway, get things into perspective, it's a smack we're talking about, something which hurts slightly for a few seconds and leaves no bruise. You must be getting confused with punches to the face. Do you fail to understand the meaning of "cumulative effect"? One smack isn't much, THOUSANDS are. How about 3 or 4? Or 5-7 over a childhood? I found that was enough to make my kids well-behaved. They never had tantrums in stores or restaurants. Well, not more than one or two. We need more people like you. Kids nowadays do whatever they bloody please. The few I see getting smacked shut the **** up for the rest of the time I see them. -- What Gets Longer When Pulled, Fits Between your Boobs, Inserts Neatly in a Hole, And works best when it is jerked? A seatbelt. |
#531
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:49:47 +0100, Gableking teh moron. wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:41:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson" wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:20:11 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/07/2016 01:32 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:45:56 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:59 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] Which hurts a child more? A quick smack? Or deprivation of TV for a week? It's the TV. It lasts a week not 10 seconds. Another "one instance" fallacy. The cumulative effect of HUNDREDS of these is MUCH worse. And the cumulative effect of lots of other things is even more much worse. Anyway, get things into perspective, it's a smack we're talking about, something which hurts slightly for a few seconds and leaves no bruise. You must be getting confused with punches to the face. Do you fail to understand the meaning of "cumulative effect"? One smack isn't much, THOUSANDS are. Cumulative effect only applies to things that last, like arsenic poisoning. If you were smacked yesterday, it has no effect today. Tell my bitch wife that. Women and logic do not go together. -- I like bagpipes. I also like violins when played with a hammer. |
#532
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/7/2016 3:41 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
Cumulative effect only applies to things that last, like arsenic poisoning. If you were smacked yesterday, it has no effect today. Sure it does. If I got smacked yesterday for being a smart ass to my mother, it has the effect today to make me not do it again. I was a fast learner. A well timed and well placed whack on the ass can prevent ever having to do it again if the kid is a smart learner. OTOH, beating is never justified. |
#533
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:04:59 +0100, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/7/2016 3:41 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: Cumulative effect only applies to things that last, like arsenic poisoning. If you were smacked yesterday, it has no effect today. Sure it does. If I got smacked yesterday for being a smart ass to my mother, it has the effect today to make me not do it again. I was a fast learner. Exactly. Smacking is simple and works. A well timed and well placed whack on the ass can prevent ever having to do it again if the kid is a smart learner. OTOH, beating is never justified. Smacking isn't beating. -- The dot over the letter i is called a tittle. |
#534
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:43:48 +0100, Gableking teh moron. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:04:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 6/7/2016 3:41 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: OTOH, beating is never justified. Then why bother? Fun? -- A farmer in Yorkshire sees a bloke drinking from his stream and shouts, €śEy up cocker, tha dunt wanna be drinkin watta frum theer, its full o hoss **** an cow ****e an it could kill thee.€ť The Bloke says, "Sir I am a muslim from Pakistan, can you be speaking clearer and slower please.€ť The farmer replies, "If.... You.... Use.... Two.... Hands.... You.... Won't.... Spill.... Any." |
#535
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:42:59 +0100, Gableking teh moron. wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:02:44 +0100, "James Wilkinson" wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:49:47 +0100, Gableking teh moron. wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:41:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson" wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:20:11 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/07/2016 01:32 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:45:56 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:59 PM, James Wilkinson wrote: [snip] Which hurts a child more? A quick smack? Or deprivation of TV for a week? It's the TV. It lasts a week not 10 seconds. Another "one instance" fallacy. The cumulative effect of HUNDREDS of these is MUCH worse. And the cumulative effect of lots of other things is even more much worse. Anyway, get things into perspective, it's a smack we're talking about, something which hurts slightly for a few seconds and leaves no bruise. You must be getting confused with punches to the face. Do you fail to understand the meaning of "cumulative effect"? One smack isn't much, THOUSANDS are. Cumulative effect only applies to things that last, like arsenic poisoning. If you were smacked yesterday, it has no effect today. Tell my bitch wife that. Women and logic do not go together. They don't go well with slapping either. Maybe I misunderstood the definition of "slapper". -- A farmer in Yorkshire sees a bloke drinking from his stream and shouts, €śEy up cocker, tha dunt wanna be drinkin watta frum theer, its full o hoss **** an cow ****e an it could kill thee.€ť The Bloke says, "Sir I am a muslim from Pakistan, can you be speaking clearer and slower please.€ť The farmer replies, "If.... You.... Use.... Two.... Hands.... You.... Won't.... Spill.... Any." |
#536
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/7/2016 12:36 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 06/05/2016 07:07 PM, Muggles wrote: On 6/5/2016 1:39 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote: On 06/05/2016 10:19 AM, Muggles wrote: [snip] Chewing tobacco and spitting isn't all that far from smoking. My grandfather used to chew tobacco, and had spit cans (old coffee cans) around the house. I think I thought that was disgusting when I was growing up. That was when I had NO experience with people smoking, which is much worse. Consider that chewing tobacco spit is a thick liquid that DOESN'T enter other people's lungs. So, it doesn't enter their lungs, I suppose that means it doesn't hurt anyone? http://tinyurl.com/jjna4j5 Of course it hurts the USER. That's not what I was talking about. No USER is an island. -- Maggie |
#538
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/7/2016 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:42:00 -0500, notX wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:02 PM, Muggles wrote: [snip] Not dangerous?? How do you know 10 times that amount isn't in a puff of secondhand smoke? Still the "one instance" fallacy? As if "one puff" is all there is. [snip] The preeminent safety organization in the government sets daily limits for toxins and the concentrations in second hand smoke does not even bump the needle. I gave the example of Chlorine, one of the deadliest war gasses ever unleashed on mankind yet getting a little whiff when you pour bleach into your washer is harmless and they put it in your drinking water. Typical municipal water runs about 3ppm chlorine and that is far higher than any of the toxins in cigarette smoke. How many thousands of gallons of water do you use in a year? Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Research The Effect of a Single Cigarette Puff on Air Flow in the Lungs. A puff of cigarette is estimated to contain 1016 oxidants. The degree of smoking or smoke exposure can be ascertained by measuring the serum levels of continine (a metabolite of nicotine) Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen absorbed into the body.4 The present study was designed to examine the effect of cigarette puff on lung function. It is unique in that it focuses on the acute response to a single puff of cigarette smoker. http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001 -- Maggie |
#539
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:25:16 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 6/7/2016 12:57 PM, wrote: On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:42:00 -0500, notX wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:02 PM, Muggles wrote: [snip] Not dangerous?? How do you know 10 times that amount isn't in a puff of secondhand smoke? Still the "one instance" fallacy? As if "one puff" is all there is. [snip] The preeminent safety organization in the government sets daily limits for toxins and the concentrations in second hand smoke does not even bump the needle. I gave the example of Chlorine, one of the deadliest war gasses ever unleashed on mankind yet getting a little whiff when you pour bleach into your washer is harmless and they put it in your drinking water. Typical municipal water runs about 3ppm chlorine and that is far higher than any of the toxins in cigarette smoke. How many thousands of gallons of water do you use in a year? Even one puff of tobacco harmful, reports surgeon general he 704-page report, the 30th surgeon general's report to address tobacco, "validates earlier findings, expands and strengthens the science base, and describes in great detail the multiple ways that tobacco smoke damages every organ in the body, resulting in disease and death," according to its executive summary. Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke. *Even a whiff of tobacco smoke* can adversely affect the body, the report concludes. "The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly every time you inhale, causing damage immediately," Surgeon General Regina Benjamin said in a statement. "*Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA*, which can lead to cancer." The lining of the lungs becomes inflamed as soon as it is exposed to cigarette smoke, and, over time, the smoke can cause chronic lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, according to the report. *Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can trigger heart attacks*. Chemicals in tobacco smoke quickly damage blood vessels and make blood more likely to clot, increasing the risk for heart attacks, strokes and aneurysms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120905910.html That sounds more like opinion than science. If this was true ... "Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke." .... It would not be safe to leave the oxygen tent because most of those chemicals are present from other sources every day. If you believe this bull****, maybe we should be talking about the chemicals in a milk bottle., Bear in mind the SG is not a scientist, she is a political appointee |
#540
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/8/2016 1:19 AM, Muggles wrote:
Of course it hurts the USER. That's not what I was talking about. No USER is an island. It takes a village to get cancer. I think smoking should be illegal on Planet Earth. -- .. Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .. www.lds.org .. .. |
#541
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 6/8/2016 1:19 AM, Muggles wrote: Of course it hurts the USER. That's not what I was talking about. No USER is an island. It takes a village to get cancer. I think smoking should be illegal on Planet Earth. -- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . . plus it adds to global warming |
#542
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 08/06/2016 15:10, bob haller wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote: On 6/8/2016 1:19 AM, Muggles wrote: Of course it hurts the USER. That's not what I was talking about. No USER is an island. It takes a village to get cancer. I think smoking should be illegal on Planet Earth. -- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . . plus it adds to global warming LOL. -- Bod |
#543
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:09:52 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote: On 6/8/2016 1:19 AM, Muggles wrote: Of course it hurts the USER. That's not what I was talking about. No USER is an island. It takes a village to get cancer. I think smoking should be illegal on Planet Earth. Well lets just make tobacco illegal. That worked so well with alcohol and drugs, what could possibly go wrong? |
#544
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/8/2016 10:10 AM, bob haller wrote:
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote: It takes a village to get cancer. I think smoking should be illegal on Planet Earth. . plus it adds to global warming Just think of all that Freon (R) being released! - .. Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .. www.lds.org .. .. |
#545
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/8/2016 5:52 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:25:16 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 6/7/2016 12:57 PM, wrote: On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:42:00 -0500, notX wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:02 PM, Muggles wrote: [snip] Not dangerous?? How do you know 10 times that amount isn't in a puff of secondhand smoke? Still the "one instance" fallacy? As if "one puff" is all there is. [snip] The preeminent safety organization in the government sets daily limits for toxins and the concentrations in second hand smoke does not even bump the needle. I gave the example of Chlorine, one of the deadliest war gasses ever unleashed on mankind yet getting a little whiff when you pour bleach into your washer is harmless and they put it in your drinking water. Typical municipal water runs about 3ppm chlorine and that is far higher than any of the toxins in cigarette smoke. How many thousands of gallons of water do you use in a year? Even one puff of tobacco harmful, reports surgeon general he 704-page report, the 30th surgeon general's report to address tobacco, "validates earlier findings, expands and strengthens the science base, and describes in great detail the multiple ways that tobacco smoke damages every organ in the body, resulting in disease and death," according to its executive summary. Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke. *Even a whiff of tobacco smoke* can adversely affect the body, the report concludes. "The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly every time you inhale, causing damage immediately," Surgeon General Regina Benjamin said in a statement. "*Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA*, which can lead to cancer." The lining of the lungs becomes inflamed as soon as it is exposed to cigarette smoke, and, over time, the smoke can cause chronic lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, according to the report. *Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can trigger heart attacks*. Chemicals in tobacco smoke quickly damage blood vessels and make blood more likely to clot, increasing the risk for heart attacks, strokes and aneurysms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120905910.html That sounds more like opinion than science. If this was true ... "Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke." ... It would not be safe to leave the oxygen tent because most of those chemicals are present from other sources every day. If you believe this bull****, maybe we should be talking about the chemicals in a milk bottle., Bear in mind the SG is not a scientist, she is a political appointee I also posted a second article that is a study with 26 extensive references. Why'd you ignore it? This website contains studies related to this topic, too. I'll post another one - see other post. Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Research The Effect of a Single Cigarette Puff on Air Flow in the Lungs. A puff of cigarette is estimated to contain 1016 oxidants. The degree of smoking or smoke exposure can be ascertained by measuring the serum levels of continine (a metabolite of nicotine) Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen absorbed into the body.4 The present study was designed to examine the effect of cigarette puff on lung function. It is unique in that it focuses on the acute response to a single puff of cigarette smoker. http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001 CONCLUSION In conclusion, PEFR was reduced after a puff of cigarette. Smoking status influenced the PEFR value as smokers had substantially lower values at the outset of the study. It is well known that from a puff of cigarette, smokers move to a stick and then from sticks to addiction and so the effects accumulate. The effect of tobacco smoking can be deleterious. If a single puff increases airway resistance and reduces PEFR, chronic smoking is bound to do much damage to the lungs. References -Bartel M. Health effect of Tobacco use and exposure. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 2001; 56: 545-550. -Winstanley M, Woodward S and Walker N. Tobacco in Australia, Facts and Issues. Austrl Ann Med 1995; 16: 31-40. -Jaakkola M, Jaakkolan P, Ernst P, Becklate M. Ventilatory Lung function in young cigarette smokers: a study of susceptibility. Eur Respir J 1991; 4: 643-650. -Gold D. Wang XB, Wypij D, Speizer FE, Ware JH and Docey DW. Effects of cirgarette smoking on lung function of adolescent boys and girls. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 931-937. -Liston J. Breast feeding and the use of recreational drugs -alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and marijuana. Breast-feed Rev 1998 (Aug 6); 2: 27-30. -Pershagen G. Accumulating evidence on health hazards of passive smoking (Review). Act Paediatr,1999 (May); 88(5): 490-520. -Martinez FD, Cline M and Burrow B. Increased incidence of asthma in children of smoking mothers. Pediatrics 1992; 89: 21-26. -Polatly M, Erdinc M, Erdinc E. The early effect of smoking on spirometing and transfer factor. Turk Resp J 2000; 1(2): 31-34. -Iyawe VI, Igweh JC, Orie NN and Umapathy E. Time Course and Bronchodilator effect of caffeine in young Nigerians. J Physiol Sci 1990; 6: 50-56. -Josh LN, Hoshia VD. Effect of forced breathing on ventilatory function of the Lungs. J Postgrad Med 1998; 44(3): 67-69. -Reddy TS, Guleria S, Sanjeer S, Sharina SK and Pandy JK. Domestic cooking fuel and lung functions in healthy non smoking women. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci 2004; 46: 85-89. -Kuperman AS and River JB. The variable effect of smoking on pulmonary function. Chest 1973; 63: 655-660. -Bosse R, Spabow D, Gawey AJ, Costa PT, Weiss ST and Rowe JW. Cigarette smoking, aging and decline in pulmonary fuction -A Longitudinal study. Arch Environm Hlth 1980; 35(4): 247 252. -Chan-yeung M and DimichWard H. Respiratory Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Respirology 2003; 8(2): 131-139. -Hecht SS. Tobacco Carcinogens, their biomarkers and tobacco-induced cancer. Nature Rev Cancer 2003; 4: 733-744. -Mannino DM, Homa DM and Road SC. Involuntary Smoking and Asthma severity in children. Chest 2002; 122(2): 409- 415. -Femi-Pearse D and Elebute EA. Ventilatory function in healthy adult Nigerians. Clin. Sci 1971; 41: 203-211. -Ali MA. Racial differences in ventilatory functions. Nig J Physiol Sci 1990; 6: 59-62. -Ebomoyi MI and Iyawe VI. Variations of peak flow rate with anthropometric determinants in a population of healthy adult Nigerians. Nig J Physiol Sci 2005; 20: 85-89. -Alakija W, Iyawe VI, Jarrikre LN and Chiwuzie JC. Ventilatory function of workers at Okpella Cement Factory in Nigeria. W Afr JMed 1990; 9(3): 187-192. -Lew EA, Garfinkel L. Differences in mortality and longevity by sex, smoking habits and health status. Society of actuaries Transaction 1987; 18: 24-28. -Kucoks, Cokdenizr, Atmaca, Uyram I, Buhur A and Taskih O. The effect of smoking on the glutathione levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Tr J of Med. Sc. Tubitak 1999; 20:643-647. -West JB. Respiratory Physiol The Essentials. 5th Ed. (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore) 1995; P.10. -Zhu B, Enstrom JE and Kabat GC. Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth.. Cancer cells 2003; 4: 191-196. -Flintoft L. Carcinogenesis: Inhaling can seriously damage your health. Nature 2003; 3: 800. -Iyawe VI and Ebomoyi MI. Current developments in the physiology and management of asthma. Nig J Physiol Sci 2005; 20:1929. -- Maggie |
#546
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/8/2016 5:52 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:25:16 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 6/7/2016 12:57 PM, wrote: On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:42:00 -0500, notX wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:02 PM, Muggles wrote: [snip] Not dangerous?? How do you know 10 times that amount isn't in a puff of secondhand smoke? Still the "one instance" fallacy? As if "one puff" is all there is. [snip] The preeminent safety organization in the government sets daily limits for toxins and the concentrations in second hand smoke does not even bump the needle. I gave the example of Chlorine, one of the deadliest war gasses ever unleashed on mankind yet getting a little whiff when you pour bleach into your washer is harmless and they put it in your drinking water. Typical municipal water runs about 3ppm chlorine and that is far higher than any of the toxins in cigarette smoke. How many thousands of gallons of water do you use in a year? Even one puff of tobacco harmful, reports surgeon general he 704-page report, the 30th surgeon general's report to address tobacco, "validates earlier findings, expands and strengthens the science base, and describes in great detail the multiple ways that tobacco smoke damages every organ in the body, resulting in disease and death," according to its executive summary. Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke. *Even a whiff of tobacco smoke* can adversely affect the body, the report concludes. "The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly every time you inhale, causing damage immediately," Surgeon General Regina Benjamin said in a statement. "*Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA*, which can lead to cancer." The lining of the lungs becomes inflamed as soon as it is exposed to cigarette smoke, and, over time, the smoke can cause chronic lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, according to the report. *Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can trigger heart attacks*. Chemicals in tobacco smoke quickly damage blood vessels and make blood more likely to clot, increasing the risk for heart attacks, strokes and aneurysms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120905910.html That sounds more like opinion than science. If this was true ... "Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke." ... It would not be safe to leave the oxygen tent because most of those chemicals are present from other sources every day. If you believe this bull****, maybe we should be talking about the chemicals in a milk bottle., Bear in mind the SG is not a scientist, she is a political appointee Here is another study: http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?st15007 International Journal of Environment Science and Technology Center for Environment and Energy Research and Studies (CEERS) ISSN: 1735-1472 EISSN: 1735-2630 Vol. 12, No. 1, 2015, pp. 73-86 Experimental and computational study of particulate matter of secondhand smoke in indoor environment Tobacco smoke changes chemically and physically after it is released into indoor air; these changes can increase secondhand smoke (SHS) toxicity. SHS is a mixture of two forms of smoke: side stream smoke, which is smoke from the end of a lighted cigarette, and main stream smoke, smoke that is exhaled by a smoker. The residuals of tobacco smoke that are left on a variety of indoor surfaces are generally considered as ‘‘thirdhand smoke (THS).’’ These residuals are reacting with indoor pollutants to create a toxic mixture which cause adverse health effects. A number of relevant studies have been performed to investigate tobacco smoke in indoor environment (e.g., see link for references) measured fine particles in four different indoor environments, a lecture room, a restaurant, and two types of offices, and determined that the highest concentration was recorded in the restaurant. Another study in Perth, Western Australia, involved air quality measurements in 20 social venues that permitted smoking and found elevated particulate matter concentrations. The American Society for heating refrigerating and air conditioning engineers is not recommending a ventilation standard or air purifier for removing secondhand smoke since they have studied drifting secondhand smoke for years (ASHARE 2005). Ventilation cannot remove smoke from air. It may remove smell of smoke but not the dangersof SHS. The entire study text: http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?st15007 -- Maggie |
#547
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/8/2016 7:09 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 6/8/2016 1:19 AM, Muggles wrote: Of course it hurts the USER. That's not what I was talking about. No USER is an island. It takes a village to get cancer. I think smoking should be illegal on Planet Earth. I don't think making it illegal will work, but limiting how smokers expose other people to the second hand and third hand chemicals is a good thing, imo. -- Maggie |
#548
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/8/2016 5:52 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:25:16 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 6/7/2016 12:57 PM, wrote: On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:42:00 -0500, notX wrote: On 06/05/2016 07:02 PM, Muggles wrote: [snip] Not dangerous?? How do you know 10 times that amount isn't in a puff of secondhand smoke? Still the "one instance" fallacy? As if "one puff" is all there is. [snip] The preeminent safety organization in the government sets daily limits for toxins and the concentrations in second hand smoke does not even bump the needle. I gave the example of Chlorine, one of the deadliest war gasses ever unleashed on mankind yet getting a little whiff when you pour bleach into your washer is harmless and they put it in your drinking water. Typical municipal water runs about 3ppm chlorine and that is far higher than any of the toxins in cigarette smoke. How many thousands of gallons of water do you use in a year? Even one puff of tobacco harmful, reports surgeon general he 704-page report, the 30th surgeon general's report to address tobacco, "validates earlier findings, expands and strengthens the science base, and describes in great detail the multiple ways that tobacco smoke damages every organ in the body, resulting in disease and death," according to its executive summary. Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke. *Even a whiff of tobacco smoke* can adversely affect the body, the report concludes. "The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly every time you inhale, causing damage immediately," Surgeon General Regina Benjamin said in a statement. "*Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA*, which can lead to cancer." The lining of the lungs becomes inflamed as soon as it is exposed to cigarette smoke, and, over time, the smoke can cause chronic lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, according to the report. *Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can trigger heart attacks*. Chemicals in tobacco smoke quickly damage blood vessels and make blood more likely to clot, increasing the risk for heart attacks, strokes and aneurysms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120905910.html That sounds more like opinion than science. If this was true ... "Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke." ... It would not be safe to leave the oxygen tent because most of those chemicals are present from other sources every day. If you believe this bull****, maybe we should be talking about the chemicals in a milk bottle., Bear in mind the SG is not a scientist, she is a political appointee Other studies relating to smoking from all over the world: http://www.bioline.org.br/search?sea...et te+smoking -- Maggie |
#549
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 6/8/2016 10:41 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:09:52 -0400, Stormin Mormon I think smoking should be illegal on Planet Earth. Well lets just make tobacco illegal. That worked so well with alcohol and drugs, what could possibly go wrong? Also works with guns, borders, having Congress respect the deficit ceiling, domestic violence, and hate crimes. -- .. Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .. www.lds.org .. .. |
#551
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:18:29 -0500, Muggles
wrote: Other studies relating to smoking from all over the world: Any study that does not deal with the concentration of the toxin is hyperbolic bull****. It flies in the face of safety regulations used in industry and your own government's guidelines. If you really believe any of these chemicals are dangerous in virtually unmeasurable amounts (or "any amount" as some of these "studies" say), you better just stay in the oxygen tent the rest of your life. You are surrounded by them and most do not come from cigarettes. It is clear you drank the Kool Aid and no amount of logic will sway you. Stay hysterical and be happy OUT! |
#552
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
|
#553
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Where should smoking be illegal?
"Sam E" wrote in message ... On 06/08/2016 09:41 AM, wrote: [snip] I think smoking should be illegal on Planet Earth. Well lets just make tobacco illegal. That worked so well with alcohol and drugs, what could possibly go wrong? It (making the stuff illegal) won't keep people from using it, but at least they'll do it in PRIVATE, away from "normal" people. We can not do that it will put me out of business! What I will do with all this Weeds I have |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Should that be smoking? | UK diy | |||
TOT; Smoking Kangoo | UK diy | |||
OT Smoking in bed | Home Repair | |||
Here it is. The smoking gun. | UK diy | |||
Smoking in the MachineShop | Metalworking |