http://www.physorg.com/news10754.html
I admit smoking may contribute to cancer. They should admit it does not cause cancer. If it did, everyone who smoked would have cancer. They do not.
See? that research was free and has been going on since...1600 what?
The state needs to quit trying to be mama. Mama has that job.
But this research has to do with Second Hand Smoke.
It shows that current segregation into smoking vs non-smoking areas is not very effective.
Thus while I don't have an issue if YOU choose to smoke, the question I have for you is why do I have to breathe YOUR second hand smoke?
You see, unrestrained smoking INDOORS in PUBLIC places is an infringement on my ability to breathe uncontaminated air.
I don't think the solution necessarily requires the complete ban on smoking but what it does say is that simply designating one area as smoking and one as non-smoking is not effective.
Clearly public extablishments that allow smoking COULD install either passive or active methods to keep the amount of second hand smoke in the non-smoking sections below reasonable levels.
Secondly, in deference to the wait staff in bars and such, regulations could be passed that limit the PPM of second hand smoke allowed, again allowing them to be controlled by active air movement/filtering etc.
Arthur
It shows that current segregation into smoking vs non-smoking areas is not very effective.
Thus while I don't have an issue if YOU choose to smoke, the question I have for you is why do I have to breathe YOUR second hand smoke?
You see, unrestrained smoking INDOORS in PUBLIC places is an infringement on my ability to breathe uncontaminated air.
I don't think the solution necessarily requires the complete ban on smoking but what it does say is that simply designating one area as smoking and one as non-smoking is not effective.
Clearly public extablishments that allow smoking COULD install either passive or active methods to keep the amount of second hand smoke in the non-smoking sections below reasonable levels.
Secondly, in deference to the wait staff in bars and such, regulations could be passed that limit the PPM of second hand smoke allowed, again allowing them to be controlled by active air movement/filtering etc.
Arthur
We're talking about a pub here! Alcohol has been shown to cause stomach cancer. So you want to be able to go and pick your poison? And you want to complain about a little smoke in the air? If there is enough people who demand a smoke free pub start one, but don't try to dictate what a pub owner can and can not allow.
QUOTE
It shows that current segregation into smoking vs non-smoking areas is not very effective.
If it is so ineffective why don't you sit in the smoking areas? Because the higher smoke concentrations make a big difference to you comfort.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It shows that current segregation into smoking vs non-smoking areas is not very effective. |
If it is so ineffective why don't you sit in the smoking areas? Because the higher smoke concentrations make a big difference to you comfort.
Clearly public establishments that allow smoking COULD install either passive or active methods to keep the amount of second hand smoke in the non-smoking sections below reasonable levels.
Secondly, in deference to the wait staff in bars and such, regulations could be passed that limit the PPM of second hand smoke allowed, again allowing them to be controlled by active air movement/filtering etc.
Yes the problem with society is that we don't have enough laws dictating what we can and can not do. People don't go to the pub for their health. Sitting too much is also unhealthy, and leads to more health problems than second hand smoke, maybe we shouldn't allow people to sit at the pub. We could install treadmills instead. That would be much better for the health of everyone. The lighting is also too low, that's a hazard. There should be a law for the minimum lumens a Pub can have, oh and it should be full spectrum light, oh well excluding any harmful UVs.
You don't have to go to a pub. You choose to go there. If this is such an important issue there should be non-smoking pubs, but most likely they wouldn't get enough business. People should be in charge of their own safety, and not try to dictate other people's safety.
QUOTE (Thomas the Gardener+Feb 10 2006, 02:55 PM)
We're talking about a pub here! Alcohol has been shown to cause stomach cancer. So you want to be able to go and pick your poison? And you want to complain about a little smoke in the air? If there is enough people who demand a smoke free pub start one, but don't try to dictate what a pub owner can and can not allow.
If it is so ineffective why don't you sit in the smoking areas? Because the higher smoke concentrations make a big difference to you comfort.
If it is so ineffective why don't you sit in the smoking areas? Because the higher smoke concentrations make a big difference to you comfort.
Clearly public establishments that allow smoking COULD install either passive or active methods to keep the amount of second hand smoke in the non-smoking sections below reasonable levels.
Secondly, in deference to the wait staff in bars and such, regulations could be passed that limit the PPM of second hand smoke allowed, again allowing them to be controlled by active air movement/filtering etc.
Yes the problem with society is that we don't have enough laws dictating what we can and can not do. People don't go to the pub for their health. Sitting too much is also unhealthy, and leads to more health problems than second hand smoke, maybe we shouldn't allow people to sit at the pub. We could install treadmills instead. That would be much better for the health of everyone. The lighting is also too low, that's a hazard. There should be a law for the minimum lumens a Pub can have, oh and it should be full spectrum light, oh well excluding any harmful UVs.
You don't have to go to a pub. You choose to go there. If this is such an important issue there should be non-smoking pubs, but most likely they wouldn't get enough business. People should be in charge of their own safety, and not try to dictate other people's safety.
Its not just Pubs its about indoor public places in general, you know like restaurants. So separate facilities is not the solution, for obvious business reasons.
I simply was asking that we accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. Nothing in what I proposed "dictated what you could or could not do". So all of your "straw man" arguments are not relevant. I don't care if you are an overweight couch potato drinking in the dark. But when you burn leaves indoors it DOES affect me. Even so, all I ask is that an establishment that allows people to carry rolled up tubes of burning leaves around provide a mechanism to rid the facility of the smoke they produce and to provide an area where people who don't like to breathe the smoke they produce, can sit and have air that is reasonably free of smoke from these burning leaves.
Do you believe one CAN'T make a "no smoking section" that works?
Seems the mechanics behind this would be fairly simple for almost any establishment.
I've seen a number of bars/restaurants that pull this off simply by using an airflow system which has the heating/cooling return set to pull air predominately from the smoking section and a majority of the outputs in the non-smoking sections, thus the flow of air is from the non-smoking to the smoking section. That and a decent filtering system and you should be in business.
I'm a bit surprised by your response, I think I'm being reasonable but you are saying if I don't like it find an establishment that doesn't allow smoking at all.
I think YOUR position is unreasonable and getting worse since the percent of smokers continues to drop. Smokers have been in the MINORITY for some time.
The result of Non-smokers being in the majority is an increasing amount of restrictions on smokers. But I think part of this is because of the attitude you project. What is happening in MANY areas is not the reasonable changes I advocate but instead, because so many establishments only met the LETTER of the law, not the SPIRIT, and thus as this study showed were ineffective. Thus pissed off non-smokers, thus NEW laws that are outright bans.
Arthur
I would have to agree with adoucette. Maybe it's not the best choice of words to say that smoking causes cancer. But isn't that like saying just because a few people who eat healthy and exercise don't lose weight, that eating healthy and exercising don't decrease your risk of gaining weight? Of course every single person who smokes one cigarette doesn't develop cancer, but isn't it obvious that people who smoke over most of their lives develop more health problems and live shorter average lives?
One of these four labels are required to be on the side of cigarettes:
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart
Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces
Serious Risks to Your Health.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in
Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...Cite:+15USC1333
While I understand the problem with the word "causes" in the first option, I think it's common knowledge that in general, smoking is not good for your health or the health of those in close proximity.
QUOTE
It shows that current segregation into smoking vs non-smoking areas is not very effective.
If it is so ineffective why don't you sit in the smoking areas? Because the higher smoke concentrations make a big difference to you comfort.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It shows that current segregation into smoking vs non-smoking areas is not very effective. |
If it is so ineffective why don't you sit in the smoking areas? Because the higher smoke concentrations make a big difference to you comfort.
Clearly public establishments that allow smoking COULD install either passive or active methods to keep the amount of second hand smoke in the non-smoking sections below reasonable levels.
Secondly, in deference to the wait staff in bars and such, regulations could be passed that limit the PPM of second hand smoke allowed, again allowing them to be controlled by active air movement/filtering etc.
Yes the problem with society is that we don't have enough laws dictating what we can and can not do. People don't go to the pub for their health. Sitting too much is also unhealthy, and leads to more health problems than second hand smoke, maybe we shouldn't allow people to sit at the pub. We could install treadmills instead. That would be much better for the health of everyone. The lighting is also too low, that's a hazard. There should be a law for the minimum lumens a Pub can have, oh and it should be full spectrum light, oh well excluding any harmful UVs.
You don't have to go to a pub. You choose to go there. If this is such an important issue there should be non-smoking pubs, but most likely they wouldn't get enough business. People should be in charge of their own safety, and not try to dictate other people's safety.
Its not just Pubs its about indoor public places in general, you know like restaurants. So separate facilities is not the solution, for obvious business reasons.
I simply was asking that we accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. Nothing in what I proposed "dictated what you could or could not do". So all of your "straw man" arguments are not relevant. I don't care if you are an overweight couch potato drinking in the dark. But when you burn leaves indoors it DOES affect me. Even so, all I ask is that an establishment that allows people to carry rolled up tubes of burning leaves around provide a mechanism to rid the facility of the smoke they produce and to provide an area where people who don't like to breathe the smoke they produce, can sit and have air that is reasonably free of smoke from these burning leaves.
Do you believe one CAN'T make a "no smoking section" that works?
Seems the mechanics behind this would be fairly simple for almost any establishment.
I've seen a number of bars/restaurants that pull this off simply by using an airflow system which has the heating/cooling return set to pull air predominately from the smoking section and a majority of the outputs in the non-smoking sections, thus the flow of air is from the non-smoking to the smoking section. That and a decent filtering system and you should be in business.
I'm a bit surprised by your response, I think I'm being reasonable but you are saying if I don't like it find an establishment that doesn't allow smoking at all.
I think YOUR position is unreasonable and getting worse since the percent of smokers continues to drop. Smokers have been in the MINORITY for some time.
The result of Non-smokers being in the majority is an increasing amount of restrictions on smokers. But I think part of this is because of the attitude you project. What is happening in MANY areas is not the reasonable changes I advocate but instead, because so many establishments only met the LETTER of the law, not the SPIRIT, and thus as this study showed were ineffective. Thus pissed off non-smokers, thus NEW laws that are outright bans.
Arthur
The present anti-smoking frenzy will eventually be viewed with the same amusement with which we now view prohibition of alcohol. The whole thing is largely just another form of substitute for religion. I'm guessing obesity will be next, then perhaps consumption of meat.
It's incredible (to me) to observe all the prohibitionists bugging out on the (highly debatable) statistical dangers of smoking on tha basis of numbers of deaths caused, then completely ignore millions of families being required to survive with no medical insurance. Or a bombing campaign on a city in the mid-east.
It's incredible (to me) to observe all the prohibitionists bugging out on the (highly debatable) statistical dangers of smoking on tha basis of numbers of deaths caused, then completely ignore millions of families being required to survive with no medical insurance. Or a bombing campaign on a city in the mid-east.
QUOTE (lengold+)
the (highly debatable) statistical dangers of smoking
Surely you gest?
The Life insurance companies figured this out long ago.
You smoke, you pay more.
You want to know why the health insurance companies don't care?
Because as the Docs that I know will tell you, if you smoke you age faster and then die quickly.
Heart disease being the top of the list and there is no long drawn out expensive treatment for lung cancer. Most go soon after diagnosis.
Arthur
Surely you gest?
The Life insurance companies figured this out long ago.
You smoke, you pay more.
You want to know why the health insurance companies don't care?
Because as the Docs that I know will tell you, if you smoke you age faster and then die quickly.
Heart disease being the top of the list and there is no long drawn out expensive treatment for lung cancer. Most go soon after diagnosis.
Arthur
Allrighty then. Nobody addressed MY point. Just to make it clear...If smoking CAUSED cancer, and that includes second hand smoke; those who smoke would ALL have cancer. Sheesh. Get a grip folks. I can show sugar is a carcinogen if I feed enough it to some poor experimental animal. If one does not like smoking, stay away from it. DO NOT try and make the whole world buckle under to your own views. It will NEVER happen. And California??? We really have to do something about that place....
QUOTE (OdinsAcolyte+Feb 20 2006, 01:31 PM)
Allrighty then. Nobody addressed MY point. Just to make it clear...If smoking CAUSED cancer, and that includes second hand smoke; those who smoke would ALL have cancer.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, in a direct, smoke a cig you get cancer, way.
But there is NO QUESTION that smoking INCREASES the CHANCES that you will get cancer.
Statistically the longer you smoke the greater likelyhood of coming down with Lung cancer (also heart disease, stroke etc etc (its a long list, but basically DIE SOONER is an easier way to lump all the BAD things that are more likely to happen to you if you smoke)).
There is also a statistical correlation to exposure to second hand smoke. Though not nearly as bad as actually smoking, its still worse than those who don't have OCCUPATIONAL exposure to second hand smoke.
Arthur
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, in a direct, smoke a cig you get cancer, way.
But there is NO QUESTION that smoking INCREASES the CHANCES that you will get cancer.
Statistically the longer you smoke the greater likelyhood of coming down with Lung cancer (also heart disease, stroke etc etc (its a long list, but basically DIE SOONER is an easier way to lump all the BAD things that are more likely to happen to you if you smoke)).
There is also a statistical correlation to exposure to second hand smoke. Though not nearly as bad as actually smoking, its still worse than those who don't have OCCUPATIONAL exposure to second hand smoke.
Arthur
[QUOTE]The present anti-smoking frenzy will eventually be viewed with the same amusement with which we now view prohibition of alcohol.[quote]
I'd wager you are wrong. Smoking is on the decline, and smoking in a public place DIRECTLY effects other people in close proximity. Smoking is no longer considered glamorous, and it is in fact being looked down on by the mojority of today's youth. The popularity of smoking is waning. Anti-smoking campaigns are winning.
If you choose to drink you will not be inducing any physiological effects on those around you unless you are simply an extremely obnoxious drunk, in which case you could cause other's around you to become ill.
One can argue alcohol-related car crashes/deaths are more of a concern, but again, a car crash is an indirect result of another action, i.e. drinking and/or not paying attention. Unless, of course, someone actually aimed a car at you or your car because they simply didn't like you.
I do believe that a world without alcohol would be a better place, but then again, people would find other ways escape reality. Hell, one might as well pick up smoking for that matter! To be born is ultimately fatal anyway.
I'd wager you are wrong. Smoking is on the decline, and smoking in a public place DIRECTLY effects other people in close proximity. Smoking is no longer considered glamorous, and it is in fact being looked down on by the mojority of today's youth. The popularity of smoking is waning. Anti-smoking campaigns are winning.
If you choose to drink you will not be inducing any physiological effects on those around you unless you are simply an extremely obnoxious drunk, in which case you could cause other's around you to become ill.
One can argue alcohol-related car crashes/deaths are more of a concern, but again, a car crash is an indirect result of another action, i.e. drinking and/or not paying attention. Unless, of course, someone actually aimed a car at you or your car because they simply didn't like you.
I do believe that a world without alcohol would be a better place, but then again, people would find other ways escape reality. Hell, one might as well pick up smoking for that matter! To be born is ultimately fatal anyway.
QUOTE
Allrighty then. Nobody addressed MY point. Just to make it clear...If smoking CAUSED cancer, and that includes second hand smoke; those who smoke would ALL have cancer. Sheesh. Get a grip folks. I can show sugar is a carcinogen if I feed enough it to some poor experimental animal. If one does not like smoking, stay away from it. DO NOT try and make the whole world buckle under to your own views. It will NEVER happen. And California??? We really have to do something about that place....
I would have to agree with adoucette. Maybe it's not the best choice of words to say that smoking causes cancer. But isn't that like saying just because a few people who eat healthy and exercise don't lose weight, that eating healthy and exercising don't decrease your risk of gaining weight? Of course every single person who smokes one cigarette doesn't develop cancer, but isn't it obvious that people who smoke over most of their lives develop more health problems and live shorter average lives?
One of these four labels are required to be on the side of cigarettes:
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart
Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces
Serious Risks to Your Health.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in
Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...Cite:+15USC1333
While I understand the problem with the word "causes" in the first option, I think it's common knowledge that in general, smoking is not good for your health or the health of those in close proximity.
QUOTE (OdinsAcolyte+Feb 20 2006, 01:31 PM)
Allrighty then. Nobody addressed MY point. Just to make it clear...If smoking CAUSED cancer, and that includes second hand smoke; those who smoke would ALL have cancer. Sheesh. Get a grip folks. I can show sugar is a carcinogen if I feed enough it to some poor experimental animal. If one does not like smoking, stay away from it. DO NOT try and make the whole world buckle under to your own views. It will NEVER happen. And California??? We really have to do something about that place....
Odin,
I could care less if you smoke.
I'm not at all interested in being your Parent and telling you what you can and can not do.
To YOURSELF.
I DO have an issue you try to do it to ME though.
But I'm reasonable, smoking sections and good ventilation and I'm cool with you smoking, hacking, coughing and generally making yourself stink. I know you THINK you look cool, but to the MAJORITY of us who DON'T smoke, every drag says loud and clear I'M AN IMMATURE IDIOT.
You waste a substantial part of your disposable income on cigerattes, you pay more for life and medical insurance, you pay a LOT in taxes and you generally die in your late 50s to early 60s so that you help to subsidize my Social Security payouts as I live generally 30 or 40 years longer than you do.
So no, I've no problem with you smoking.
Need a light?
Arthur
Odin,
I could care less if you smoke.
I'm not at all interested in being your Parent and telling you what you can and can not do.
To YOURSELF.
I DO have an issue you try to do it to ME though.
But I'm reasonable, smoking sections and good ventilation and I'm cool with you smoking, hacking, coughing and generally making yourself stink. I know you THINK you look cool, but to the MAJORITY of us who DON'T smoke, every drag says loud and clear I'M AN IMMATURE IDIOT.
You waste a substantial part of your disposable income on cigerattes, you pay more for life and medical insurance, you pay a LOT in taxes and you generally die in your late 50s to early 60s so that you help to subsidize my Social Security payouts as I live generally 30 or 40 years longer than you do.
So no, I've no problem with you smoking.
Need a light?
Arthur
Hey thanks Arthur! (you are a real knee-biter Dent)
I am hardly an idiot and am not defending smoking in any way. Leave me be and y'all perform your own methods of self destruction. Face it, we all do....
Even if it is because you are killed for being an arrogant *** at some bar. Oh yeah, I forgot, you can't smoke in England anymore. I would stay home for a while. There will be high levels of stress all over the UK for a bit. The state nanny can't save everybody so she picks on the least popular as pariah. Hmmm. I have seen this before somewhere....
Oh yes. Next all zmokerz vill be required to vear an inzignia of a zmoke ring und ring a bell vile crying "unclean, unclean". Ve vill confiscate all firearms und sharp, edged veapons zo novone can hert themzelfz or defend deir own life.
It keeps the 'rulers' safe. (If I don't get my bath, I take it out on the slaves! Space, Lord, Mother, Father!) sorry. got carried away. Y'all have fun.
Here in Texas, we will keep our booze, guns, knives and smokes. Come visit! Just don't whine about it. It could be fatal.
I am hardly an idiot and am not defending smoking in any way. Leave me be and y'all perform your own methods of self destruction. Face it, we all do....
Even if it is because you are killed for being an arrogant *** at some bar. Oh yeah, I forgot, you can't smoke in England anymore. I would stay home for a while. There will be high levels of stress all over the UK for a bit. The state nanny can't save everybody so she picks on the least popular as pariah. Hmmm. I have seen this before somewhere....
Oh yes. Next all zmokerz vill be required to vear an inzignia of a zmoke ring und ring a bell vile crying "unclean, unclean". Ve vill confiscate all firearms und sharp, edged veapons zo novone can hert themzelfz or defend deir own life.
It keeps the 'rulers' safe. (If I don't get my bath, I take it out on the slaves! Space, Lord, Mother, Father!) sorry. got carried away. Y'all have fun.
Here in Texas, we will keep our booze, guns, knives and smokes. Come visit! Just don't whine about it. It could be fatal.
It's not been entirely banned, yet. You can smoke outdoors, just not indoors. I support it myself, but I'm biased and don't want to get into a debate about it. I realise there's a good argument to be made against the ban.
My grandmother was always a voracious smoker - over 2 packs a day. Since she entered the nursing home last year she has had to cut down to 6 cigarettes a day. She is now 101.
QUOTE (OdinsAcolyte+Feb 22 2006, 06:44 PM)
Hey thanks Arthur! (you are a real knee-biter Dent)
I am hardly an idiot and am not defending smoking in any way. Leave me be and y'all perform your own methods of self destruction. Face it, we all do....
Even if it is because you are killed for being an arrogant *** at some bar. Oh yeah, I forgot, you can't smoke in England anymore. I would stay home for a while. There will be high levels of stress all over the UK for a bit. The state nanny can't save everybody so she picks on the least popular as pariah. Hmmm. I have seen this before somewhere....
Oh yes. Next all zmokerz vill be required to vear an inzignia of a zmoke ring und ring a bell vile crying "unclean, unclean". Ve vill confiscate all firearms und sharp, edged veapons zo novone can hert themzelfz or defend deir own life.
It keeps the 'rulers' safe. (If I don't get my bath, I take it out on the slaves! Space, Lord, Mother, Father!) sorry. got carried away. Y'all have fun.
Here in Texas, we will keep our booze, guns, knives and smokes. Come visit! Just don't whine about it. It could be fatal.
Could have fooled me:
I am hardly an idiot and am not defending smoking in any way. Leave me be and y'all perform your own methods of self destruction. Face it, we all do....
Even if it is because you are killed for being an arrogant *** at some bar. Oh yeah, I forgot, you can't smoke in England anymore. I would stay home for a while. There will be high levels of stress all over the UK for a bit. The state nanny can't save everybody so she picks on the least popular as pariah. Hmmm. I have seen this before somewhere....
Oh yes. Next all zmokerz vill be required to vear an inzignia of a zmoke ring und ring a bell vile crying "unclean, unclean". Ve vill confiscate all firearms und sharp, edged veapons zo novone can hert themzelfz or defend deir own life.
It keeps the 'rulers' safe. (If I don't get my bath, I take it out on the slaves! Space, Lord, Mother, Father!) sorry. got carried away. Y'all have fun.
Here in Texas, we will keep our booze, guns, knives and smokes. Come visit! Just don't whine about it. It could be fatal.
Could have fooled me:
QUOTE (Odin+ but he's not really defending smoking)
If smoking CAUSED cancer, and that includes second hand smoke; those who smoke would ALL have cancer. Sheesh. Get a grip folks. I can show sugar is a carcinogen if I feed enough it to some poor experimental animal. If one does not like smoking, stay away from it. DO NOT try and make the whole world buckle under to your own views.
I was in Dallas a while back.
They have banned smoking in bars.
So if you want to smoke, you might think about moving to France.
They still think smoking is "cool" over there.
Arthur
I was in Dallas a while back.
They have banned smoking in bars.
So if you want to smoke, you might think about moving to France.
They still think smoking is "cool" over there.
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.