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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Why don't all those others make me cough,
sneeze, eyes water, hack, and other
symptoms?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

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.


There are people who complain about someone's flatulence, so what's the
point? There will always be some uptight whining liberal who thinks they
should tell others how to live.

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, 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.

+1

That's the problem I have, the lib anti-smoking crowd are just never
satisfied. Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.

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.

On 07/02/2016 11:04 AM, 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.

True. I see a lot of this nonsense, claiming something is harmless
because something else is worse.

Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.

There's another common fallacy there (at least in speech). The idea that
there is only ONE of something. I wonder how many whiffs of smoke I've
been exposed to (and it's a LOT more than one).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The only spiritual disease is righteousness, and only religious people
have it."

On 07/02/2016 11:20 AM, 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.

Again, reality refuses to be simple, and these situations do happen.

There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.

Seeing it reminds me of the impaired breathing.

People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.



--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The only spiritual disease is righteousness, and only religious people
have it."

On 07/02/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.

I'm not sure about cigars, but I have been around someone smoking a
pipe, and it's not nearly the nasty thing a cigarette is.

BTW, pot wasn't either.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The only spiritual disease is righteousness, and only religious people
have it."

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:23:23 PM UTC-5, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 07/02/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.

I'm not sure about cigars, but I have been around someone smoking a
pipe, and it's not nearly the nasty thing a cigarette is.

BTW, pot wasn't either.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The only spiritual disease is righteousness, and only religious people
have it."

I was told by a long time pipe smoker that if the pipe tobacco smells good burning, it tastes bad to the smoker. And the opposite it true. FWIW

Per :
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.

Yeah, but how many of them give me a crashing headache and make my
sinuses swell up like balloons?

I'm not running for office, so I can say it: Smoking stinks and, whether
anybody likes it or not, smokers stink.

I used to smoke... and I know from experience that one's olfactory
senses adapt rapidly.... but rest assured that even though a smoker
can't smell it themselves, they really do smell bad.

It's like bad breath.... your best friends won't tell you.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Mark Lloyd:
I'm not sure about cigars, but I have been around someone smoking a
pipe, and it's not nearly the nasty thing a cigarette is.

I kind of like the smell of cigar smoke. Doesn't mean I'd want to work
with somebody sucking on a cigar all day - or share an elevator with
one.... but, in an open space, I find the smell mildly pleasant.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 7/2/2016 2:04 PM, bob_villain wrote:

I was told by a long time pipe smoker that if the pipe tobacco smells good burning, it tastes bad to the smoker. And the opposite it true. FWIW


Smoked a pipe for a couple of years and did not find that to be true.
My wife preferred the smell of it to cigarettes, but I found myself
inhaling it so I stopped completely.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:41:33 -0400, 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.

Is I pointed out to Mugs, using the OSHA standard for the regulated
toxins, you would have to smoke 150 cigarettes in a small room with
zero ventilation to get even close. That is based on sitting in that
environment for 8 hours to get to the DTLV. The show I talked about
was saying you get the same kind of exposure with air fresheners,
cleaning products, cosmetics and even foodstuffs. Unfortunately being
CNN I could not see the end because they had to cut away to a
correspondent who stood around in Bangladesh saying he still did not
know anything ... for the rest of the hour.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:43:36 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Why don't all those others make me cough,
sneeze, eyes water, hack, and other
symptoms?

Dunno, consult your mental health provider

On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, 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.

Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals
in third-hand smoke, 11 are carcinogens (substances capable of causing
cancer.) A few of the chemicals that have been found on surfaces after
smoking include nicotine, cyanide, radioactive polonium-210, lead,
arsenic, butane, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and butane.

A second way that toxins can be of concern with third-hand smoke is
through a process called “off- gassing". Off-gassing occurs when
substances from smoke that have been deposited on surfaces, such as
nicotine, are released back into the air as gases. Through this process,
tobacco residue that has built up on surfaces continues to emit toxins
long after smoking has occurred.

In addition to toxic chemicals that are present on surfaces or released
into the air, a third route of exposure is when new toxins are created
by the interaction of substances in THS with other chemicals present in
the environment. Two examples of interactions that have been documented
include:

When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.

Researchers have just begun to evaluate possible dangers, but findings
thus far include:

- Thirdhand smoke (THS) was found to interfere with the healing of
wounds, and also "wound elasticity" - in other words, how rapidly a
wound will heal and what kind of scar will be formed.
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)
- There is early evidence that THS may raise the risk of cancer.
Nitrosamines - chemicals found in THS - above the limits recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency for children aged 1 to 6 are found
in 77 percent of homes which have smokers. This is thought to translate
into 1 case of cancer for every 1000 people. It's important to note,
however, that this research is still very young, and most chemicals in
thirdhand smoke have not yet been studied in this manner.
- THS exposure in mice can result in fatty liver disease, which in turn
may lead to cirrhosis and heart disease.
- Thirdhand smoke exposure may result in biological changes in cells
that predispose to fibrosis, which raises concern that it may play a
role in COPD and asthma.
- Changes in how platelets combine due to THS raises concern that THS
may increase the risk of blood clots and heart disease.
- THS exposure in mice results in hyperactivity, and there is concern
that prolonged exposure in children could result in more serious
neurological conditions."

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867
--
Maggie

On 7/2/2016 11:43 AM, Stormin Mormon 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.


Why don't all those others make me cough,
sneeze, eyes water, hack, and other
symptoms?


VOC's can have some of the same health hazards, and they have made me
ill, too.

--
Maggie

On 7/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, 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.


+1

That's the problem I have, the lib anti-smoking crowd are just never

The issue has nothing to do with politics (liberal/conservative). It's
a health issue.

satisfied. Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.


Some things are that important that there should be no compromise.

--
Maggie

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.

--
Maggie

On 7/2/2016 12:23 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 07/02/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.

I'm not sure about cigars, but I have been around someone smoking a
pipe, and it's not nearly the nasty thing a cigarette is.

BTW, pot wasn't either.


Cigar smoke is possibly more toxic than cigarette smoke (3). Cigar smoke
has:

A higher level of cancer-causing substances: During the fermentation
process for cigar tobacco, high concentrations of cancer-causing
nitrosamines are produced. These compounds are released when a cigar is
smoked. Nitrosamines are found at higher levels in cigar smoke than in
cigarette smoke.

More tar: For every gram of tobacco smoked, there is more
cancer-causing tar in cigars than in cigarettes.

A higher level of toxins: Cigar wrappers are less porous than
cigarette wrappers. The nonporous cigar wrapper makes the burning of
cigar tobacco less complete than the burning of cigarette tobacco. As a
result, cigar smoke has higher concentrations of toxins than cigarette
smoke.

Furthermore, the larger size of most cigars (more tobacco) and longer
smoking time result in higher exposure to many toxic substances
(including carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, ammonia, cadmium, and other
substances).

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/c...ars-fact-sheet

--
Maggie

On 7/2/2016 1:27 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per :
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.

Yeah, but how many of them give me a crashing headache and make my
sinuses swell up like balloons?

I'm not running for office, so I can say it: Smoking stinks and, whether
anybody likes it or not, smokers stink.

I used to smoke... and I know from experience that one's olfactory
senses adapt rapidly.... but rest assured that even though a smoker
can't smell it themselves, they really do smell bad.

It's like bad breath.... your best friends won't tell you.


+100

--
Maggie

On 7/2/2016 4:36 PM, Muggles wrote:

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867


We all know smoking kills. Smokers are suicidal.

I guess the 64k question is should we allow smokers to commit suicide or
should we prevent them from jumping off the bridge.


(My gut tells me to give them a nudge but...)

australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack per year. year one a buck,
year 10 .........10 bucks

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from smoking......

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:48:56 AM UTC-5, 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.

Every fraking thing in our environment is attacking us all the time. We're covered with microbes that would kill us if we let our guard(immune system) down. I support the right of any ADULT to destroy their mind and body anyway they wish as long as the harm only themselves. I avoid smokers and the places they occupy because I'm terribly allergic to the tobacco smoke which is like teargas to me. I don't go to bars and places where smokers are likely to congregate. There is a smoking area outside here at the nursing and rehab center. I must avoid the hallway where the door going to the smoking area is located because smoke blows in when the door is opened. If it's a windy day, the smoke can be blown quite a distance into the building because the wheelchair bound smokers take a long time to get through the door. The center really needs an airlock in that section of hallway but it could cost them too much money and some anal sphincter is likely to prop the inner door open. I support your right to ingest the highly addictive drug nicotine. Please do it someplace away from me. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Coughing Monster

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.

--
Maggie

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

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, 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.

Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals
in third-hand smoke, 11 are carcinogens (substances capable of causing
cancer.) A few of the chemicals that have been found on surfaces after
smoking include nicotine, cyanide, radioactive polonium-210, lead,
arsenic, butane, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and butane.

A second way that toxins can be of concern with third-hand smoke is
through a process called €œoff- gassing". Off-gassing occurs when
substances from smoke that have been deposited on surfaces, such as
nicotine, are released back into the air as gases. Through this process,
tobacco residue that has built up on surfaces continues to emit toxins
long after smoking has occurred.

In addition to toxic chemicals that are present on surfaces or released
into the air, a third route of exposure is when new toxins are created
by the interaction of substances in THS with other chemicals present in
the environment. Two examples of interactions that have been documented
include:

When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.

Researchers have just begun to evaluate possible dangers, but findings
thus far include:

- Thirdhand smoke (THS) was found to interfere with the healing of
wounds, and also "wound elasticity" - in other words, how rapidly a
wound will heal and what kind of scar will be formed.
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)
- There is early evidence that THS may raise the risk of cancer.
Nitrosamines - chemicals found in THS - above the limits recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency for children aged 1 to 6 are found
in 77 percent of homes which have smokers. This is thought to translate
into 1 case of cancer for every 1000 people. It's important to note,
however, that this research is still very young, and most chemicals in
thirdhand smoke have not yet been studied in this manner.
- THS exposure in mice can result in fatty liver disease, which in turn
may lead to cirrhosis and heart disease.
- Thirdhand smoke exposure may result in biological changes in cells
that predispose to fibrosis, which raises concern that it may play a
role in COPD and asthma.
- Changes in how platelets combine due to THS raises concern that THS
may increase the risk of blood clots and heart disease.
- THS exposure in mice results in hyperactivity, and there is concern
that prolonged exposure in children could result in more serious
neurological conditions."

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867
--
Maggie

I'll bet every one of those "studies" went something like this. Take
the tar and chemicals from the smoke of 1000 cigarettes that accumulate
on the surface in some very confined space, smear it all over a mouse
that is already known to be very susceptible to developing cancer,
leave it there until it causes cancer. Or take some of that goo and
show that in a test tube it causes something to happen. In short,
I'll bet it has zero correlation to someone catching a whiff of the
smell of smoke from someone smoking 25 t away. Kind of like extrapolating
that catching a whiff of a bus passing once in awhile is going to kill
you.

On 07/02/2016 03:38 PM, Rene wrote:
On 7/2/2016 4:36 PM, Muggles wrote:

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867


We all know smoking kills. Smokers are suicidal.

I guess the 64k question is should we allow smokers to commit suicide or should we prevent them from jumping off the bridge.


(My gut tells me to give them a nudge but...)


I believe the tobacco companies knowingly add chemicals to tobacco to make it more addictive. Once addicted, the weak-willed smokers can't break free.

Smokers often claim they smoke because they choose to but really they have been unwittingly duped by big tobacco's drugs.

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:40:58 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, 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.


+1

That's the problem I have, the lib anti-smoking crowd are just never

The issue has nothing to do with politics (liberal/conservative). It's
a health issue.


It has everything to do with politics and being liberal or conservative.
Liberals believe they have to regulate everything and do so with relish.
They want ever bigger govt, more govt programs, more govt regulators.
Conservatives want less regulations and to live people as free as possible.





satisfied. Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.


Some things are that important that there should be no compromise.

--
Maggie

Sure, no compromise for liberals. That was exactly my point, you won't
stop until you control EVERYTHING we do, because YOU know what is best
for all the rest of us, we have no rights. Conservatives believe
that individuals have a right to live their own life and if I want to
have a cigar dinner in
a private room in a private restaurant that is an issue of my freedom
to do what I please, and none of your business. What constitutional
power gives you the right to tell us we can't a cigar dinner? Is that
the country Madison and the founders saw?

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack per year. year one a buck,
year 10 .........10 bucks

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from smoking......

I hate the stink from liberals too, how about we tax them like that until
they go away?

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
bob haller wrote:

From: bob haller
Subject: For all of you "second hand smoke" ninnies.
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair

australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically.

You are free to move there if their system suits you better.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 8:31:03 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals
in third-hand smoke, 11 are carcinogens (substances capable of causing
cancer.) A few of the chemicals that have been found on surfaces after
smoking include nicotine, cyanide, radioactive polonium-210, lead,
arsenic, butane, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and butane.

A second way that toxins can be of concern with third-hand smoke is
through a process called €œoff- gassing". Off-gassing occurs when
substances from smoke that have been deposited on surfaces, such as
nicotine, are released back into the air as gases. Through this process,
tobacco residue that has built up on surfaces continues to emit toxins
long after smoking has occurred.

In addition to toxic chemicals that are present on surfaces or released
into the air, a third route of exposure is when new toxins are created
by the interaction of substances in THS with other chemicals present in
the environment. Two examples of interactions that have been documented
include:

When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.

Researchers have just begun to evaluate possible dangers, but findings
thus far include:

- Thirdhand smoke (THS) was found to interfere with the healing of
wounds, and also "wound elasticity" - in other words, how rapidly a
wound will heal and what kind of scar will be formed.
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)
- There is early evidence that THS may raise the risk of cancer.
Nitrosamines - chemicals found in THS - above the limits recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency for children aged 1 to 6 are found
in 77 percent of homes which have smokers. This is thought to translate
into 1 case of cancer for every 1000 people. It's important to note,
however, that this research is still very young, and most chemicals in
thirdhand smoke have not yet been studied in this manner.
- THS exposure in mice can result in fatty liver disease, which in turn
may lead to cirrhosis and heart disease.
- Thirdhand smoke exposure may result in biological changes in cells
that predispose to fibrosis, which raises concern that it may play a
role in COPD and asthma.
- Changes in how platelets combine due to THS raises concern that THS
may increase the risk of blood clots and heart disease.
- THS exposure in mice results in hyperactivity, and there is concern
that prolonged exposure in children could result in more serious
neurological conditions."

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867
--
Maggie

I'll bet every one of those "studies" went something like this. Take
the tar and chemicals from the smoke of 1000 cigarettes that accumulate
on the surface in some very confined space, smear it all over a mouse
that is already known to be very susceptible to developing cancer,
leave it there until it causes cancer. Or take some of that goo and
show that in a test tube it causes something to happen. In short,
I'll bet it has zero correlation to someone catching a whiff of the
smell of smoke from someone smoking 25 t away. Kind of like extrapolating
that catching a whiff of a bus passing once in awhile is going to kill
you.

"I'll bet..." makes *you* the idiot of the day! You know nothing about the studies but choose to call them *all* bogus. And all for a stupid cigar dinner...you're a ****ing moron!

Per trader_4:
It has everything to do with politics and being liberal or conservative.
Liberals believe they have to regulate everything and do so with relish.

Like birth control and abortion, right?
--
Pete Cresswell

(PeteCresswell) was thinking very hard :
Per trader_4:
It has everything to do with politics and being liberal or conservative.
Liberals believe they have to regulate everything and do so with relish.

Like birth control and abortion, right?

Thank you, that needed to be pointed out.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:58:43 AM UTC-4, bob_villain wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 8:31:03 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals
in third-hand smoke, 11 are carcinogens (substances capable of causing
cancer.) A few of the chemicals that have been found on surfaces after
smoking include nicotine, cyanide, radioactive polonium-210, lead,
arsenic, butane, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and butane.

A second way that toxins can be of concern with third-hand smoke is
through a process called €œoff- gassing". Off-gassing occurs when
substances from smoke that have been deposited on surfaces, such as
nicotine, are released back into the air as gases. Through this process,
tobacco residue that has built up on surfaces continues to emit toxins
long after smoking has occurred.

In addition to toxic chemicals that are present on surfaces or released
into the air, a third route of exposure is when new toxins are created
by the interaction of substances in THS with other chemicals present in
the environment. Two examples of interactions that have been documented
include:

When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.

Researchers have just begun to evaluate possible dangers, but findings
thus far include:

- Thirdhand smoke (THS) was found to interfere with the healing of
wounds, and also "wound elasticity" - in other words, how rapidly a
wound will heal and what kind of scar will be formed.
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)
- There is early evidence that THS may raise the risk of cancer.
Nitrosamines - chemicals found in THS - above the limits recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency for children aged 1 to 6 are found
in 77 percent of homes which have smokers. This is thought to translate
into 1 case of cancer for every 1000 people. It's important to note,
however, that this research is still very young, and most chemicals in
thirdhand smoke have not yet been studied in this manner.
- THS exposure in mice can result in fatty liver disease, which in turn
may lead to cirrhosis and heart disease.
- Thirdhand smoke exposure may result in biological changes in cells
that predispose to fibrosis, which raises concern that it may play a
role in COPD and asthma.
- Changes in how platelets combine due to THS raises concern that THS
may increase the risk of blood clots and heart disease.
- THS exposure in mice results in hyperactivity, and there is concern
that prolonged exposure in children could result in more serious
neurological conditions."

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867
--
Maggie

I'll bet every one of those "studies" went something like this. Take
the tar and chemicals from the smoke of 1000 cigarettes that accumulate
on the surface in some very confined space, smear it all over a mouse
that is already known to be very susceptible to developing cancer,
leave it there until it causes cancer. Or take some of that goo and
show that in a test tube it causes something to happen. In short,
I'll bet it has zero correlation to someone catching a whiff of the
smell of smoke from someone smoking 25 t away. Kind of like extrapolating
that catching a whiff of a bus passing once in awhile is going to kill
you.

"I'll bet..." makes *you* the idiot of the day! You know nothing about the studies but choose to call them *all* bogus. And all for a stupid cigar dinner...you're a ****ing moron!

I've seen enough of these "studies" to know what they typically do. Plus
many of the studies wind up getting it wrong, few years later, it's all
changed again. If you want to provide us with the actual study, I'd be
happy to take a look.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:01:04 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per trader_4:
It has everything to do with politics and being liberal or conservative.
Liberals believe they have to regulate everything and do so with relish.

Like birth control and abortion, right?
--
Pete Cresswell

I don't know of any conservative movement to do anything with regard to
access to birth control with the exception of abortion. And abortion is
obviously a very special case because another life, who has no voice,
is involved.

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

On 7/3/2016 8:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, 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.

Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals
in third-hand smoke, 11 are carcinogens (substances capable of causing
cancer.) A few of the chemicals that have been found on surfaces after
smoking include nicotine, cyanide, radioactive polonium-210, lead,
arsenic, butane, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and butane.

A second way that toxins can be of concern with third-hand smoke is
through a process called €œoff- gassing". Off-gassing occurs when
substances from smoke that have been deposited on surfaces, such as
nicotine, are released back into the air as gases. Through this process,
tobacco residue that has built up on surfaces continues to emit toxins
long after smoking has occurred.

In addition to toxic chemicals that are present on surfaces or released
into the air, a third route of exposure is when new toxins are created
by the interaction of substances in THS with other chemicals present in
the environment. Two examples of interactions that have been documented
include:

When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.

Researchers have just begun to evaluate possible dangers, but findings
thus far include:

- Thirdhand smoke (THS) was found to interfere with the healing of
wounds, and also "wound elasticity" - in other words, how rapidly a
wound will heal and what kind of scar will be formed.
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)
- There is early evidence that THS may raise the risk of cancer.
Nitrosamines - chemicals found in THS - above the limits recommended by
the Environmental Protection Agency for children aged 1 to 6 are found
in 77 percent of homes which have smokers. This is thought to translate
into 1 case of cancer for every 1000 people. It's important to note,
however, that this research is still very young, and most chemicals in
thirdhand smoke have not yet been studied in this manner.
- THS exposure in mice can result in fatty liver disease, which in turn
may lead to cirrhosis and heart disease.
- Thirdhand smoke exposure may result in biological changes in cells
that predispose to fibrosis, which raises concern that it may play a
role in COPD and asthma.
- Changes in how platelets combine due to THS raises concern that THS
may increase the risk of blood clots and heart disease.
- THS exposure in mice results in hyperactivity, and there is concern
that prolonged exposure in children could result in more serious
neurological conditions."

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867
--
Maggie


I'll bet every one of those "studies" went something like this. Take
the tar and chemicals from the smoke of 1000 cigarettes that accumulate
on the surface in some very confined space, smear it all over a mouse
that is already known to be very susceptible to developing cancer,
leave it there until it causes cancer. Or take some of that goo and
show that in a test tube it causes something to happen. In short,
I'll bet it has zero correlation to someone catching a whiff of the
smell of smoke from someone smoking 25 t away. Kind of like extrapolating
that catching a whiff of a bus passing once in awhile is going to kill
you.


What exactly qualifies as a "whiff of smoke"??

Get back to me when you have some concise scientific proof.

--
Maggie

On 7/3/2016 8:40 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:40:58 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:20:30 PM UTC-4, 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.


+1

That's the problem I have, the lib anti-smoking crowd are just never

The issue has nothing to do with politics (liberal/conservative). It's
a health issue.


It has everything to do with politics and being liberal or conservative.
Liberals believe they have to regulate everything and do so with relish.
They want ever bigger govt, more govt programs, more govt regulators.
Conservatives want less regulations and to live people as free as possible.





satisfied. Like banning smoking even if I want to have a private cigar
dinner at a restaurant once a month. Whatever restrictions there are,
it's never enough, no compromise is possible.


Some things are that important that there should be no compromise.



Sure, no compromise for liberals. That was exactly my point, you won't
stop until you control EVERYTHING we do, because YOU know what is best
for all the rest of us, we have no rights.

Can you just not comprehend the many times that I've come straight out
and said I'm a conservative?



Conservatives believe
that individuals have a right to live their own life and if I want to
have a cigar dinner in
a private room in a private restaurant that is an issue of my freedom
to do what I please, and none of your business. What constitutional
power gives you the right to tell us we can't a cigar dinner? Is that
the country Madison and the founders saw?


Conservatives believe in common sense, and common sense says that if
smoking in all it's forms makes people sick that it's a GOOD idea to
limit exposure to it for people who don't smoke, or don't want to be
exposed to hazardous waste.


--
Maggie