Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-25, Bazza wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

scotsgal wrote:

And if you're a child or asthmatic, the chemicals in even faint
smoke particles are more than just a nuisance.
Alas only in your imagination.
Umm no, wishful thinking on your part. And don't try to tell me
otherwise, tobacco smoke is one of the most noxious chemcial
arsenals around for (some) asthmatics.
Won't try to tell you otherwise as obviously you are one of the
people who have been totally sucked in by the anti smoking lobbies
propaganda.
Sigh. Tobacco smoke is full of carcinogens. End of debate.
But second hand smoke isnt - us smokers filter it for you. The poison is in
the dose.

It is, but in far lower concentrations.

It is highly irritating, but then so are many things. I remember we all
had to ecvacuate a restaurant once..thought we had been tear gassed.
Turns out they had a small fat fire and it got into the aircon.

I wouldn't mind such vehement andti-smoke ourgae, if people ALSO
accepted that the aftershaves and perfumes they use, and the soap
powders they use, can ALSO cause severe asthmatic attacks.

Yep. I can't go down the washiong powder aisle in the supermarket.


AND driving ropund the M25 with all the diesel fumes is FAR FAR more

... useful. What use is your addiction?



Well it makes me nearly as stupid as the people I have to deal with on a
daily basis. This helps a lot.

In article
,
geraldthehamster wrote:
Yes, but should you have to? An older property is bound to leak in
those places. Isn't it incumbent on your neighbours not to cause a
nuisance by filling your property up with smoke? Quiet enjoyment and
all that.

If fag smoke can get from one property to another so will other smells etc
and smoke in event of a fire. And likely vermin, etc. It therefore doesn't
conform to building regs and should be sorted ASAP. Unless the path is via
windows and external doors which really shouldn't that common an
occurrence.

--
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26 Dec, 11:11, Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:





The Medway Handyman wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-25, Bazza wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

scotsgal wrote:

And if you're a child or asthmatic, the chemicals in even faint
smoke particles are more than just a nuisance.
Alas only in your imagination.
Umm no, wishful thinking on your part. And don't try to tell me
otherwise, tobacco smoke is one of the most noxious chemcial
arsenals around for (some) asthmatics.
Won't try to tell you otherwise as obviously you are one of the
people who have been totally sucked in by the anti smoking lobbies
propaganda.
Sigh. Tobacco smoke is full of carcinogens. End of debate.

But second hand smoke isnt - us smokers filter it for you. *The poison is in
the dose.

It is, but in far lower concentrations.

It is highly irritating, but then so are many things. I remember we all
had to ecvacuate a restaurant once..thought we had been tear gassed.
Turns out they had a small fat fire and it got into the aircon.

I wouldn't mind such vehement andti-smoke ourgae, if people ALSO
accepted that the aftershaves and perfumes they use, and the soap
powders they use, can ALSO cause severe asthmatic attacks.

Yep. I can't go down the washiong powder aisle in the supermarket.

AND driving ropund the M25 with all the diesel fumes is FAR FAR more

... useful. What use is your addiction?

Lemsip and Doritos.


--
* * * * * "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
* * * * * * * * *and presumptuous desire for a second one."
* * * * * * * *[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org dot uk]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-25, Bazza wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

scotsgal wrote:

And if you're a child or asthmatic, the chemicals in even faint
smoke particles are more than just a nuisance.
Alas only in your imagination.
Umm no, wishful thinking on your part. And don't try to tell me
otherwise, tobacco smoke is one of the most noxious chemcial
arsenals around for (some) asthmatics.
Won't try to tell you otherwise as obviously you are one of the
people who have been totally sucked in by the anti smoking lobbies
propaganda.
Sigh. Tobacco smoke is full of carcinogens. End of debate.

But second hand smoke isnt - us smokers filter it for you. The
poison is in the dose.


It is, but in far lower concentrations.

It is highly irritating, but then so are many things. I remember we
all had to ecvacuate a restaurant once..thought we had been tear
gassed. Turns out they had a small fat fire and it got into the
aircon.

I wouldn't mind such vehement andti-smoke ourgae, if people ALSO
accepted that the aftershaves and perfumes they use, and the soap
powders they use, can ALSO cause severe asthmatic attacks.

Yep. I can't go down the washiong powder aisle in the supermarket.


AND driving ropund the M25 with all the diesel fumes is FAR FAR more

... useful. What use is your addiction?

Driving round the M25 useful? How much polution is that causing? Enough
CO2 emmissions to destroy the planet.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-26, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-25, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-25, Bazza wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

scotsgal wrote:

And if you're a child or asthmatic, the chemicals in even
faint smoke particles are more than just a nuisance.
Alas only in your imagination.

Umm no, wishful thinking on your part. And don't try to tell me
otherwise, tobacco smoke is one of the most noxious chemcial
arsenals around for (some) asthmatics.

Won't try to tell you otherwise as obviously you are one of the
people who have been totally sucked in by the anti smoking
lobbies propaganda.

Sigh. Tobacco smoke is full of carcinogens. End of debate.

But second hand smoke isnt

Yes it is.

And don't bother denying it. I think I'll take the word of the
biochemists who trained me over that of a handyman, thanks.

Very good. Argumentum ad verecundiam and Argumentum ad hominem in
one paragraph.

Think what you like. It's the truth nonetheless. Cigarette smoke *is*
full of carcinogens, I *do* have a biochemistry degree and you *are*
a handyman.

Then I'm surprised that someone thus qualified is unable to realise that
passive smoke cannot possibly contain the same level of carcinogens as
active smoke. I am further surprised that you don't know that smokers and
non smokers who develop lung cancer develop different types of cancer in
different parts of the lung.

The fact that you were once a biochemist and I currently choose to earn my
living as a handyman is irrelevant to the argument.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-26, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-25, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-25, Bazza wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

scotsgal wrote:

And if you're a child or asthmatic, the chemicals in even
faint smoke particles are more than just a nuisance.
Alas only in your imagination.
Umm no, wishful thinking on your part. And don't try to tell me
otherwise, tobacco smoke is one of the most noxious chemcial
arsenals around for (some) asthmatics.
Won't try to tell you otherwise as obviously you are one of the
people who have been totally sucked in by the anti smoking
lobbies propaganda.
Sigh. Tobacco smoke is full of carcinogens. End of debate.
But second hand smoke isnt
Yes it is.

And don't bother denying it. I think I'll take the word of the
biochemists who trained me over that of a handyman, thanks.
Very good. Argumentum ad verecundiam and Argumentum ad hominem in
one paragraph.
Think what you like. It's the truth nonetheless. Cigarette smoke *is*
full of carcinogens, I *do* have a biochemistry degree and you *are*
a handyman.

Then I'm surprised that someone thus qualified is unable to realise that
passive smoke cannot possibly contain the same level of carcinogens as
active smoke.

Indeed, depending on many factors, it could contain more, but of course
its far more dilute by the time it gets to you.


I am further surprised that you don't know that smokers and
non smokers who develop lung cancer develop different types of cancer in
different parts of the lung.


ALWAYS? You DO surprise me..


The fact that you were once a biochemist and I currently choose to earn my
living as a handyman is irrelevant to the argument.


Possibly, but it pays to be as careful preparing your arguments as
sharpening your tools.