The why smoke thread

[Darth Wong]

All of those reports list some sort of reduction in productivity in the workplace -- picking the one that you want doen't "validate" your point either.

Except that it happens to be correlated with smoking, which was the entire point of those studies, dumb-ass.

By not lisiting other potiential causes it only weakens your all ready weak point.

If those other things caused it, then why was it coincidentally correlated with smoking? Are you saying that smokers suffer more from all of those things?

Considering the fact that you ommitted underlying facts to try to strengthen you weak argument.

So you think it's an "omission" to note that a strong correlation between productivity and smoking is probably due to smoking, and not something else like gambling problems?

Calling people names to try to dominate the issue is INVALID as well.

Except that at no point have those names been used in lieu of an actual point, whereas you have repeatedly ignored or misrepresented points on my part, asshole.

[BrYaN19kc]

All of those reports list some sort of reduction in productivity in the workplace -- picking the one that you want doen't "validate" your point either.

Except that it happens to be correlated with smoking, which was the entire point of those studies, dumb-ass.

By not lisiting other potiential causes it only weakens your all ready weak point.

If those other things caused it, then why was it coincidentally correlated with smoking? Are you saying that smokers suffer more from all of those things?

Considering the fact that you ommitted underlying facts to try to strengthen you weak argument.

So you think it's an "omission" to note that a strong correlation between productivity and smoking is probably due to smoking, and not something else like gambling problems?

Calling people names to try to dominate the issue is INVALID as well.

Except that at no point have those names been used in lieu of an actual point, whereas you have repeatedly ignored or misrepresented points on my part, asshole.

Quite frankly, in the overall picture, there are so many reports on reduction in productivity in the work, so many statistics on so many causes - I don't give much concern to any one factor. I'm sure if you look there is probably a report that says that working causes a reduction in productivity. By saying "picking the one that you want" means that by not looking at the overall picture of all the thousands of reports on everything weakens the point.

I have misrepresented nothing on your part. You did go out of your way to not even address mine.

And if using profanity is a ploy to push me into using the same tactic, it won't work.

[Darth Wong]

Quite frankly, in the overall picture, there are so many reports on reduction in productivity in the work, so many statistics on so many causes - I don't give much concern to any one factor. I'm sure if you look there is probably a report that says that working causes a reduction in productivity.

Nice long-winded way of saying "I don't buy it but I can't explain why".

By saying "picking the one that you want" means that by not looking at the overall picture of all the thousands of reports on everything weakens the point.

Then find a report which concludes the opposite. You cannot appeal to ignorance in order to win arguments. When your opponent presents evidence, your job is to either present countervailing evidence, show precisely what is wrong with the evidence presented, or concede the point. YOu have done none of the above.

I have misrepresented nothing on your part. You did go out of your way to not even address mine.

Name one claim which I did not address, asshole. It took three repetitions of the fact that your "just go work somewhere else" rebuttal was a joke before you stopped using it, and you never did concede the point; you just stopped saying it.

And if using profanity is a ploy to push me into using the same tactic, it won't work.

It's a way of indicating that I'm not impressed by your evasive bullshit.

[BrYaN19kc]

Quite frankly, in the overall picture, there are so many reports on reduction in productivity in the work, so many statistics on so many causes - I don't give much concern to any one factor. I'm sure if you look there is probably a report that says that working causes a reduction in productivity.

Nice long-winded way of saying "I don't buy it but I can't explain why".

By saying "picking the one that you want" means that by not looking at the overall picture of all the thousands of reports on everything weakens the point.

Then find a report which concludes the opposite. You cannot appeal to ignorance in order to win arguments. When your opponent presents evidence, your job is to either present countervailing evidence, show precisely what is wrong with the evidence presented, or concede the point. YOu have done none of the above.

I have misrepresented nothing on your part. You did go out of your way to not even address mine.

Name one claim which I did not address, asshole. It took three repetitions of the fact that your "just go work somewhere else" rebuttal was a joke before you stopped using it, and you never did concede the point; you just stopped saying it.

And if using profanity is a ploy to push me into using the same tactic, it won't work.

It's a way of indicating that I'm not impressed by your evasive bullshit.

Do not parade your medieval local workplace health regulations as a benefit.

Is not my idea of addressing anything.

[Darth Wong]

Do not parade your medieval local workplace health regulations as a benefit.

Is not my idea of addressing anything.

Perhaps if you had a point to make, I would have addressed it. But simply saying "that's the way it is" is not a point when people are arguing over the way it should be. Do you honestly not understand this? I've gone well beyond the point of questioning your intelligence and am now starting to question your sentience.

As I said, you have consistently misrepresented my points, played games, evaded issues, appealed to ignorance, and tried to hold your nose in the air with your holier-than-thou pissing over my foul language in order to claim false airs of moral superiority. Your debating skills are nonexistent; when presented with evidence on workplace smoking that directly contradicted your claims, you first claimed that it was not relevant (even though it was) and then claimed that my argument was faulty because there might be evidence somewhere out there which contradicts mine (but did not bother to provide any examples of such evidence).

And now, you have ignored all of the major points in my last post in order to make that feeble attack which necessitated taking a sentence out of context. Where did you learn to debate? Sesame street?

[Durandal]

The link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer is purportedly tenuous at best. Penn and Teller even did a Bullshit on it.

Since that link does not work for any visitor from outside the US, I'm not particularly interested in its contents. But the last time I heard someone "debunk" this, he used statistical forensics in order to refute the known toxicity of the chemicals in cigarette smoke

Hm ... sorry about the link. I can't seem to find the direct URI to the RealVideo stream in the source, either. Perhaps this link will work?

The video stream contains testimony from the president of the American Council on Science and Health on the adverse effects of second-hand smoke. She basically says that the link between second-hand smoke and heart disease and lung cancer is "extremely scanty."

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I don't smoke tobacco at all. I would say what I do smoke, but I don't feel like violating the ToS here.

My sister did try to get me addicted to cigarettes several times when I was a teenager. I guess she wanted another thing to control me with: She was able to buy them, I wasn't at the time. I do something she didn't like, she would cut me off the cigs. Lucky for me, I quickly found that I detest the stinking things...

[Darth Wong]

The video stream contains testimony from the president of the American Council on Science and Health on the adverse effects of second-hand smoke. She basically says that the link between second-hand smoke and heart disease and lung cancer is "extremely scanty."

Is she talking about residential second-hand smoke, or the levels of second-hand smoke in bars, which can be so extreme that one's hair and clothes reek of cigarette smoke for hours after leaving?

[Durandal]

The video stream contains testimony from the president of the American Council on Science and Health on the adverse effects of second-hand smoke. She basically says that the link between second-hand smoke and heart disease and lung cancer is "extremely scanty."

Is she talking about residential second-hand smoke, or the levels of second-hand smoke in bars, which can be so extreme that one's hair and clothes reek of cigarette smoke for hours after leaving?

I'd have to say second-hand smoke in general, since she does not specify a single environment.

[Darth Wong]

I'd have to say second-hand smoke in general, since she does not specify a single environment.

In that case, she's almost certainly talking primarily about residential second-hand smoke, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of second-hand smoke cases. That is not relevant to the point under discussion.

[Durandal]

If it turns out that semi-regular (once every week or two, maybe) exposure to bar levels of second-hand smoke does, in fact, significantly increase the risk of heart disease, then you certainly have a valid criticism. I'd think that a good compromise would be to force owners who wish for smoking to be allowed in their establishments to install proper ventilation systems.

This study shows that non-smokers who work in restaurants where there is smoke aren't exposed to very high levels of it.

[Darth Wong]

If it turns out that semi-regular (once every week or two, maybe) exposure to bar levels of second-hand smoke does, in fact, significantly increase the risk of heart disease, then you certainly have a valid criticism. I'd think that a good compromise would be to force owners who wish for smoking to be allowed in their establishments to install proper ventilation systems.

Keep in mind that workplace safety regs are fairly tight for a lot of environmental contaminants; if you substituted "asbestos" for "cigarette smoke" in a lot of workplace smoking arguments, it might evoke a different reaction.

This study shows that non-smokers who work in restaurants where there is smoke aren't exposed to very high levels of it.

Interestingly enough, that link also cites an earlier AMA study which shows several times the levels of contaminants that they found in this study, and suggests that it's a function of the arbitrary choice of establishments where they happened to do their sampling (either that, or greatly improved restaurant ventilation across the board over the last 10 years, which seems a bit dicey to me).

[Gandalf]

Is she talking about residential second-hand smoke, or the levels of second-hand smoke in bars, which can be so extreme that one's hair and clothes reek of cigarette smoke for hours after leaving?

Even residential smoke can cause bad odors on clothes, my mum smokes while she irons, my clothes smell for days.

[Durandal]

If it turns out that semi-regular (once every week or two, maybe) exposure to bar levels of second-hand smoke does, in fact, significantly increase the risk of heart disease, then you certainly have a valid criticism. I'd think that a good compromise would be to force owners who wish for smoking to be allowed in their establishments to install proper ventilation systems.

Keep in mind that workplace safety regs are fairly tight for a lot of environmental contaminants; if you substituted "asbestos" for "cigarette smoke" in a lot of workplace smoking arguments, it might evoke a different reaction.

Even so, I'm not a toxicologist, and those regulations are made by toxicologists working for OSHA. From a legal standpoint, the exposure to RSP's in the average restaurant for workers is well within safety regulations, so the government cannot force restaurant owners to bar smoking from their establishments. But if there is reason to believe that OSHA's standard for RSP's is too high (and would make existing toxicity levels hazardous) when applied specifically to cigarette smoke, I'm more than willing to hear it out.

Interestingly enough, that link also cites an earlier AMA study which shows several times the levels of contaminants that they found in this study, and suggests that it's a function of the arbitrary choice of establishments where they happened to do their sampling (either that, or greatly improved restaurant ventilation across the board over the last 10 years, which seems a bit dicey to me).

The case could also be similar for the AMA study. However, it should be noted that that study's numbers are still an order of magnitude below OSHA's standard. Different establishments, different toxicity levels. This is hardly surprising. I see no reason why each restaurant whose owner wants to allow patrons to smoke shouldn't be evaluated for average toxicity before granting permission. The link also reports the results of an earlier, larger study on the subject, and the levels found still come out within safety regulations.

[Darth Wong]

Even so, I'm not a toxicologist, and those regulations are made by toxicologists working for OSHA.

Well, if we're just going to appeal to the expertise of the regulatory people with the most experts on hand, the EPA disagrees with your TV interview citation, and estimates that 3000 nonsmokers die because of secondhand smoke every year.

[Darth Servo]

Don't smoke . Never have. Never will. Loved living in California when all restaurants went smoke free. Hate it here in Texas where half the population seems like they smoke like chimneys. I noticed the difference in restaurants the very first day I was here. Nothing good comes from it. Its disgusting, and a great way to shorten your life expectancy.

[RedImperator]

Interestingly enough, that link also cites an earlier AMA study which shows several times the levels of contaminants that they found in this study, and suggests that it's a function of the arbitrary choice of establishments where they happened to do their sampling (either that, or greatly improved restaurant ventilation across the board over the last 10 years, which seems a bit dicey to me).

Perhaps not as unbelievable as you think. It's not a major operation to reduce the concentration of cigarette smoke in a room, even a small, poorly ventilated one. A lot of places install special filtering systems called smoke eaters, which bring cigarette smoke concentrations down to habitable levels (I know a few places that would be virtual fog banks without them). It could well be that a lot of juristictions now mandate them, or improved ventilation in new construction, or even limited capacity in smoking sections.

[Chardok]

http://193.78.190.200/10h/ets.htm

http://www.forces.org/canada/wcb/intro.htm <-----Canadian link

The EPA report, upon which the California EPA report was based (though the WCB, like the rest of the antitobacco cartel, portrays it as two completely independent studies coming to the same conclusions), claimed a small risk for non-smokers married to smokers, but that portion of the EPA report has been rendered void by a U.S. federal court. The EPA report did NOT include heart disease risks in its calculations of risk factors. In fact, no U.S. government agency officially endorses ANY claims of ETS risk for heart disease in non-smokers.


>No U.S. Surgeon General's report has ever endorsed the notion that ETS causes heart disease in non-smokers.


>The NCI monograph 10, cited by the board, is identical to the California EPA report, which was in turn based on the federal court-vacated U.S. EPA report. Once again, the California EPA report and Monograph 10 are listed separately as totally independent studies to add to "the mountain of evidence" against ETS.


>In actuality, the "health risks" from ETS, though existing, are infinitesimally small.

For example and to put the supposed "risk" of ETS and lung cancer in perspective:


The odds for being injured at one's bathroom sink or toilet are 1 in 4500.
The odds for getting hurt in the shower are one in 1500.
The odds of being injured by beds, mattresses or pillows are one in 650.

According to Dr. Donald Austin, one of the principal researchers on the Fontham study upon which the US and California EPA reports heavily relied, the odds of a non-smoker getting lung cancer from a smoking spouse are one in 16,393. [4]


Wait staff face vastly greater risks of being killed in a traffic accident on the way to work than they ever do from contracting lung cancer from ETS. [5]


>It is also interesting to note that most of what is available on ETS concerns smoking in the HOME, not in the workplace. We call the attention of our readers to the article "News You Won't Read in Your Newspaper," by Martha Perske. As you will see, the greater part of the studies that focus on the workplace end up concluding: "not statistically significant." Another interesting piece, still by Perske, is "OSHA tries again." The article indicates that OSHA STILL doesn't have enough to dictate a national workplace smoking ban and neither has the national government of Canada (obviously, or BC wouldn't be the one banning smoking in restaurants and bars in the province).


Similar odds apply to heart disease, and many other "ETS-related" diseases. The BC WCB simply overstates the dangers by many orders of magnitude to justify intrusion in private business and prohibition.

http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/news/news10.22.00.asp


http://healthfullife.umdnj.edu/archives ... rchive.htm

The Environmental Protection Agency conclusion that 3,000 cases of lung cancer each year (of the total number of 164,000 annually) are due to the effects of second-hand smoke on the lungs of non-smokers is just a guess, and probably an exaggeration at that

.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Will never smoke, it's fucking disgusting and anyone who does takes their chances.

I don't go to many pubs and nightclubs because of the awful stench from the stuff and the fact that many see it as a social status symbol. Although my father told me never to smoke, I don't need anyone else to give me reasons not to touch such filth. Second hand smoke is bad enough.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

I don't smoke. Since I work in a hospital I don't have to worry about smokers during work. I had some good and bad experience of smokers in other places. My girlfriend was a smoker, when we began to date I respected her habit but she still quit.

[Admiral Valdemar]

At my Dad's work there is an outdoor smoking room (think converted bus shelter, looks like a perspex viewing box) because indoors they were creating such a stink that no one was having any of it.

It's sad, really, watching 20 men huddle into this plastic box in the rain chugging away enough to cloud the area and hamper vision. The guys are mostly past 30 in age, but all have yellow teeth, all have breath able to strip wallpaper and the stench of their clothes makes me wish I'd never worked with any of them. Thankfully that smell didn't get on me for I never got around them smoking, but I know friends who have to work around second hand smoke and you can debate the threat it has to your health, but the odour you get on your clothes is revolting.

[Zaia]

May I step in here for a second to ask a question? It sounds to me like people having been saying residential secondhand smoke is not as damaging as secondhand smoke from a bar, club, restaurant or the like. If that impression is correct, I'm confused as to why this would be. If you live with a smoker, that's like being out at a club or bar every single day and night, no? Wouldn't that be worse? If not, why? Because there's a higher concentration of smoke in bars and restaurants? I would think that the regular exposure at home would exceed the occasional strong exposure when going out.

Like I said, I'm only asking; I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything.

[Zoink]

The odds for being injured at one's bathroom sink or toilet are 1 in 4500.
The odds for getting hurt in the shower are one in 1500.
The odds of being injured by beds, mattresses or pillows are one in 650.

According to Dr. Donald Austin, one of the principal researchers on the Fontham study upon which the US and California EPA reports heavily relied, the odds of a non-smoker getting lung cancer from a smoking spouse are one in 16,393.

Are we comparing lung cancer to stubbing my toe or banging my head on the toilet bowl? What exactly is a mattress injury? A sore back from a poorly designed mattress? IMHO, most bathroom accident aren't fatal and can be recovered from fairly easily. I'd gladly trade lung cancer for a common "toilet" injury any day.

The figure also does not include other smoking related "injuries". EDIT: for example cardiovascular diseases, lung diseases, and strokes that lead to premature death (which are more common in smokers than lung tumors)

It also groups all the cases together. The figure would include all the occasional smokers, short period smokers (they quit), and those that have safer smoking practices (ie. not in the presence of your spouse). Its the same with driving you car, you can quote a figure to say the likelyhood of being killed, but if you are an especially unsafe driver, the figure isn't applicable to you. If your spouse is a heavy smoker and smokes in your presense, you shouldn't feel conforted by the 1 in 15,000 number.

[Sr.mal]

I dont smoke tobacco, but I do smoke.

[Durandal]

Even so, I'm not a toxicologist, and those regulations are made by toxicologists working for OSHA.

Well, if we're just going to appeal to the expertise of the regulatory people with the most experts on hand, the EPA disagrees with your TV interview citation, and estimates that 3000 nonsmokers die because of secondhand smoke every year.

The EPA creates environmental regulations. OSHA is responsible for creating safe standards of toxicity levels in humans. Furthermore, the EPA report was thrown out by a federal court for dishonest sampling techniques and using only those data which reinforced its preordained conclusions. My clip specifically mentioned that report.

May I step in here for a second to ask a question? It sounds to me like people having been saying residential secondhand smoke is not as damaging as secondhand smoke from a bar, club, restaurant or the like. If that impression is correct, I'm confused as to why this would be. If you live with a smoker, that's like being out at a club or bar every single day and night, no? Wouldn't that be worse? If not, why? Because there's a higher concentration of smoke in bars and restaurants? I would think that the regular exposure at home would exceed the occasional strong exposure when going out.

Second-hand smoke is absorbed in far more diffuse amounts. Notice that when someone blows out some smoke, the smoke rapidly spreads out. The smoker inhaled all that smoke in far greater concentration because it was packed into a smaller volume. Also, the smoke in the air has been through two filters, the one on the cigarette (generally) and the lungs. Living with a smoker (and allowing him to smoke inside) exposes you to very sporadic, diffuse doses of tobacco smoke. With toxins, the poison is in the dose. This kind of sporadic, light exposure doesn't do significant damage. Being in a bar exposes you to more constant dosages, but they're still nowhere near as concentrated as those the person smoking the cigarette gets, and those doses are further reduced by ventilation systems.