Fourth-Hand Smoking

Avatar

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

18 Responses

  1. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    Seems over the top to me. Then again shrieking interventionism and the political opportunism that caters to it is eternal, universal and bipartisan.Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    A movie review of a movie in which actors smoked.

    My children might stumble across that movie review!Report

  3. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    Hmmm.

    I wonder how many people those kids will see get shot in the movies. Or raped (though it’s often just hinted at). Or beaten.Report

  4. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s the pro-smoking sharia, insisting we all agree that smoking should be legal.Report

  5. Avatar Saul DeGraw
    Ignored
    says:

    That is rather stupid.Report

  6. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    It stops when people stop doing things that their betters tell them not to do.Report

    • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      @damon Mass Civil Disobedience is going to become a more significant issue if smokers do not actually have places that they are allowed to smoke. In some cases, it already has.

      Which gets me back to my main thought on the area, which is that it’s not enough to talk about where people can’t smoke. Eventually every single place can (and may well) be justified. We need to figure out where they can smoke with minimal impact to others.

      (This subject is of particular interest because “it looks like smoking” is being used against the thing that finally got me to quit smoking.)Report

  7. Avatar Road Scholar
    Ignored
    says:

    Fifth-hand is living in a society where smoking is still legal somewhere, somehow.

    Sixth is being aware (perhaps through ancient 2-d video that escaped protective censorship) that a practice known as “smoking” used to exist.

    Seventh is being licensed to learn the principles of chemical combustion upon certification of need-to-know.Report

  8. Avatar harleyrider1778
    Ignored
    says:

    Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

    About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

    4 % is carbon monoxide.

    6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
    (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    nap.edu

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

    OSHA SAFE LEVELS

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!Report

  9. Avatar harleyrider1778
    Ignored
    says:

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!Report

  10. Avatar harleyrider1778
    Ignored
    says:

    Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

    Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
    Published In: Environment & Climate News
    Publication Date: July 1, 2008
    Publisher:

    http://www.heartland
    .org/policybot/resul
    ts/23399/Scientific_
    Evidence_Sho…

    myth-of-second-hand-
    smoke

    http://yourdoctorsor
    ders.com/2009/01/the
    -myth-of-second-hand
    -smoke

    BS Alert: The ‘third-hand smoke’ hoax

    http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/bs-alert-the-third-hand-smoke-hoax

    The thirdhand smoke scam

    http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/thirdhand-smoke-scam.html

    Heart attacks Frauds and Myths..

    http://www.spiked-on
    line.com/index.php/s
    ite/article/7451/

    TobaccoControl Tactics

    TCTactics aims to provide up-to-date information on the Tobacco Control Industry, its allies and those promoting the extremist anti-tobacco agenda that no longer targets just tobacco but ordinary adult consumers who use it.
    The website explores how this industry – with support from the pharmaceutical nicotine producers and government tax funds – influences and often distorts public health debates, using a whole raft of lobbying, public relations tactics and junk science.

    http://tctactics.org/index.php/Main_Page
    ……………….

    “Robert Nilsson,
    Professor of Molecular Toxicology, Stockholm University, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology.

    “The one-sided preoccupation with enviromental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a causative factor of lung cancer in nonsmokers may seriously hinder the elucidation of the multifactorial etiology of these tumors.”

    In the book ‘What Risk?’ Professor Nilsson puts children’s risk of passive smoking in this perspective:
    “Looked at another way, a child’s intake of benzo[a]pyrene during 10 hours from ETS is estimated to be about 250 times less than the amount ingested from eating one grilled sausage”””Report

  11. Avatar harleyrider1778
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Nilsson,
    Professor of Molecular Toxicology, Stockholm University, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology.

    “The one-sided preoccupation with enviromental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a causative factor of lung cancer in nonsmokers may seriously hinder the elucidation of the multifactorial etiology of these tumors.”

    In the book ‘What Risk?’ Professor Nilsson puts children’s risk of passive smoking in this perspective:
    “Looked at another way, a child’s intake of benzo[a]pyrene during 10 hours from ETS is estimated to be about 250 times less than the amount ingested from eating one grilled sausage”””

    Yes its all made up JUNK SCIENCE from the very beginning………..

    Where was passive smoking invented:

    Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.htmlReport

  12. Avatar harleyrider1778
    Ignored
    says:

    The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 “The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act”. The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *