smokers revenge

In article , chip3130
wrote:

There is no arguing, second-hand smoke is hazardous. Now to what degree,
and in comparison to what; that is up to you to decide on the hazard. If
you want clinical and peer reviewed data, here you go:

What is your opinion of the effect of three or four weeks sometimes
exposure on cruise ships on someone who is not otherwise exposed to
second hand smoke? I am concerned about my exposure since when I am on
a cruise ship I have often ended up hanging out with smokers.

--
Charles

wrote in news:12106-40B6635E-246@storefull-
3253.bay.webtv.net:

..The question to ask is: How did the person die that was autopsied.
..Probably from old age. A little discolourization of the lungs won't
kill you. ...It's the unseen things like radon gas that are probably
the big killers. ...My Dad smoked steady since the age of 5. ...He died
at 87 from causes totally unrelated to smoking. ..My Brotherinlaw's Dad
developed lung cancer. ...Never smoked; lived in a smoke-free house.
..But worked for years in a basement. ...Jon


Diseased lung tissue is black, not discolored. Looks like a piece of
charcoal. Really disgusting. I didn't say that these examples I have seen
died of lung disease. What I have seen is people who have lived in second
hand smoke arenas for most of their life, who upon death, have lungs that
look similar to subjects who smoke heavily. Not to the extreme degree of a
pack a day smoker after 45 years, but significant enough to say "did they
smoke a lot?"

And oh the addage of the man who dies from lung disease at age 24 and never
smokes, verses the 95 year old man who smoked all his life and dies from
something like pneumonia. You just can't take individual examples and make
physical laws out of them.

Even though a person who is around second hand smoke may develop lung
tissue damage that is significantly apparent, it does not necessarily mean
they will die from lung disease.

The fact is, it is a factor that can increase the odds of contracting early
death. It is not absolute, but it definetely isn't good. You make the
decision to expose yourself or not. But do not go and say it "isn't bad for
ya..." Yes it is!

There are no absolutes in the world of public health....Other than the fact
we will all die someday, somehow.

wrote in news:25670-40B80BF8-189@storefull-
3254.bay.webtv.net:

chip3130... Just out of curiousity, do you avoid campfires? ...Jon



No, but I don't stand over them in an inclosed space and inhale.

Charles wrote in
d:

In article ,
wrote:

chip3130... Just out of curiousity, do you avoid campfires? ...Jon

I don't know about Chip but I try to avoid campfires at all costs.
Nothing to do with the smoke though!!!

Second Hand smoke. I prefer not to be around it. If there is a choice I
am in the non smoking area. If there are people in a smoking area I
want to socialize with, or music I want to listen too, then I will
choose to be in that area. My priority is not the smoke. While I am
positive the second hand smoke is effecting me unseen, and I should not
be in a smoking area, I will only leave a smoking area if it is or
becomes physically irritating, that I can feel it, which happens
sometimes in poorly ventilated areas. I don't tell people I am leaving
because of the smoke, just that I am tired.

Since I don't live with a smoker and the times that I am in a smoking
area these days are few, I think the harm to me is statistically small.
But there is harm. I make some compromises because it is not a perfect
world, and I don't expect there will be a perfect world in my lifetime.


I do think the norm should be no smoking in any public place, and that
includes not only the inside public areas of cruise ships, but also the
outside decks, but until that time comes, which I believe it will come.
That has been the trend in my lifetime, I remember when smoking was
allowed everywhere except theaters, and the trend toward smoke-free
won't be reversed.


No stats, no reprisals, no flawed comparisons, just a good summary of what
I have tried to say all along....

Please could someone just give the scientific proof that second hand smoke is
deadly. If it so obvious that it is, it should be very easy to prove.

Afterall, there is a statistical study by the UN that people with a history of
exposure to second hand smoke have a reduced risk of heart disease. Are you
going to believe that without question?
Sean

...So what isn't bad for you these days-- if taken in excess? I've seen
some old people who have skin that looks like charcoal too, yet they've
never acquired skin cancer. ...I find it ironic how so many young
people today are into living a healthy lifstyle, yet they still damage
their brains smoking pot (and don't say it doesn't), or taking other
mind-altering drugs. ..But because an effect isn't readily visible, no
harm is considered done. ...At any rate, it seems that whatever is
apparently bad for you now, is more of trend, bolstered by an abundance
of media scare tactics. Jesus...I'm sure if one was to display some
pictures of livers that has been subjected to years of alcohol abuse, a
case could be made for banning alcohol too. (And I won't even mention
the effect of "second hand" alcohol on those around the drinker--
especially his family.) ...But...We don't want to bring that aspect
up, says the health care worker as he/she reaches for a cold one.
...Jon

"Bicepeak" wrote in message
...
Please could someone just give the scientific proof that second hand smoke
is
deadly. If it so obvious that it is, it should be very easy to prove.


It's simply not worth the effort to prove that smoke, which contains known
and proven carcinogens like Benzene and Methylene Chloride, is bad.

You don't need to convince the people who already believe that it is bad.

And you're simply not going to convince the people who don't care that it's
bad. They are smokers, and don't care about the health risks of smoking to
themselves... no less others (like spouses and children) around them. If
they thought or cared that it was bad, they wouldn't be smoking in the first
place. Once they get emphysema or lung cancer it's too late to matter. But
until then they won't believe you anyway. So don't waste the effort.

The only solution is for governments to implement laws to protect the people
who would otherwise be at risk from the carcinogens in the smoke. That
takes it out of the hands of those who don't care - the smokers and tobacco
companies.

--Tom

That's all we need-- More laws. ...My poppy just withered a little
more. ...Jon

wrote in message
...
That's all we need-- More laws. ...My poppy just withered a little
more. ...Jon


It's the only solution that works.

Give your poppy some water.

--Tom

Tom & Linda wrote:



You don't need to convince the people who already believe that it is bad.

And you're simply not going to convince the people who don't care that it's
bad. They are smokers, and don't care about the health risks of smoking to
themselves... no less others
--Tom



Tom your argument isn't valid.

I don't smoke, but I did. I quit for my own health. I do care about the
health of all people around me. However, I don't believe the risks of
second hand smoke are what you think they are, and there is no proof
that it is.
If you can show me the proof of the dangers, scientific proof, not
studies done by biased groups, I will jump on the wagon to Ban all
smoking in public areas.

I won't however believe it just because someone says it is, as you do.

Clay