What's the safe level of 'second-hand' smoke from tail pipes?

:shrug:

Oh, wait....

with a smoker, but died of lung cancer... oh, wait.

That sounds like something one of the characters he played said.

off.... had to have a transplant.... heh heh heh..... :)

I knew it was Deniro but just couldn't think of the movie. This movie is especially funny to me because I have panic attacks.

it heartily.... as far as panic attacks go.....


http://www.holisticonline.com/Remedies/Anxiety/anx_home.htm

episodes and really need to watch it more. Thanks.

I guess it depends on how long you've been sucking it. :evilgrin:

and get back to us :evilgrin:

Your experiment, you be the guinea pig.

Let us know how that works out for you.

:toast:

Educated.

You should try it sometime.

kick

between banning smoking outside, and banning smoking INSIDE.

You can't run your car engine inside a restaurant or bar, either.

Now, can we please move on?

Auto-emissions have been linked to asthma, but so has cigarette smoke.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here: should we not eliminate one cause of illness because other causes of illnesses exist? It's a rather silly (not to mention WEAK) position to take, frankly.

If you want, start a campaign to lower automobile emissions: obviously, it needs to be done here in the US where our average emissions are so high -- we cause half of the world's greenhouse gases coming from automobiles, according to the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-greenhouse28jun28,0,3775036.story?coll=la-home-nation
==================
As for the health risks of smoking: are we only allowed to address them after all other dangerous activities are ended?????

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-sci-smoking28jun28,0,5440884.story?coll=la-home-health
Twenty years after the first surgeon general's report on secondhand smoke, the evidence is now "indisputable" that the noxious fumes are a major health threat that kills an estimated 50,000 people each year, a new federal study said Tuesday.

There is no level of exposure to smoke that is safe, and the children of smokers are at special risk, Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona said in releasing the new report.
<snip>
The report eventually led to warnings on cigarette packages, advertising restrictions and health education programs that have helped reduce the smoking prevalence rate among adults from 42.4% in 1965 to 20.9%, or 44.5 million people, in 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.

The drop in smoking has been accompanied by a decline in cancer rates, although until recently, that decline has been overwhelmed by the growth in population. But the American Cancer Society reported in February the first decline in the absolute number of cancer deaths since 1930. The decline was small — a drop of only 369 out of about 557,000 in 2003 — but the results were attributed in large part to the smoking decreases.

Between 1988 and 2002, the report said, the percentage of adult nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke has been halved to about 43%. That exposure was determined by measuring blood levels of a key nicotine byproduct called cotinine.

Just ask anyone in Kentucky.

They encourage people to smoke here.

And the tobacco lobbyists would never do anything dishonest, would they?

What do those stupid doctors know, anyway?

i have always found it a bit disingenuous about the out cry over this vs the more deadly and prolific toxin.

:rofl:

:shrug:

i am pointing to the OUTCRY over one when another ubiquitous and more lethal toxin is ignored or down played.

fyi :hi:

It interferes with our jihad on smokers.

:eyes:

:hi:

All the rage right now.

:hi:

might want to pay more attention around here.

In 160 of 183 census tracts in northeast Indiana, the chemical benzene is the biggest contributor to the risk of cancer among airborne pollutants studied by the Environmental Protection Agency. The biggest source of benzene is auto exhaust, meaning Hoosiers’ addiction to cars could be deadly.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/14189017.htm

In France alone automobile emissions kill up to 10,000 people per year, a report by the Agency for Health and Environmental Safety (AFSSE after its French name) says
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0603-08.htm


Motor vehicles generate three major pollutants: hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide.

Hydrocarbons react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight and elevated temperatures to form ground-level ozone. It can cause eye irritation, coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath and can lead to permanent lung damage.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) also contribute to the formation of ozone and contribute to the formation of acid rain and to water quality problems.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, deadly gas. It reduces the flow of oxygen in the bloodstream and can impair mental functions and visual perception. In urban areas, motor vehicles are responsible for as much as 90 percent of carbon monoxide in the air.
http://www.nsc.org/ehc/mobile/mse_fs.htm#pollutants

In other states, clean car standards have reduced cancer-causing automobile emissions by 25%.
http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2005/03/state-should-tighten-vehicle-emissions.html

But it isn’t only carbon dioxide coming out of today’s cars, pickup trucks, SUVs and minivans. Consider these facts regarding smog-forming pollutants and toxic carcinogens:

New Tier 2 regulations, in effect in 2009, will force reductions in smog-forming emissions. In the meantime, manufacturers continue to sell and manufacture dirty vehicles that are 7 or more times as dirty as the target average for 20095;
Even under the new regulations, the average vehicle will emit more than five times as much smog-forming pollution as the cleanest vehicles, such as the Prius, do right now5;
The dirtiest vehicles made today actually emit 40 times the smog-forming pollution of today’s cleanest vehicles, which include hybrids as well as other conventional and hybrid vehicles5;
Even if every single vehicle on the road in 2009 met the new standards, the fleet of vehicles would still emit 500,000 tons of smog-forming pollution every year6. That’s like 20,000 dump truck loads at 25 tons per load;
In 2020, when more than 75% of vehicles on the road will have Tier 2 emissions, EPA projects that passenger vehicles will still emit more than 85,000 tons of toxic emissions linked to cancer7;
On a cancer-risk basis, this is equivalent to more than 350,000 tons of benzene every year8.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/avp/automaker-v-the-people-alliance-ad-fact-sheet.html

Individually or together, the various components pose a health hazard to humans. Auto emissions can cause headaches, contribute to lung cancer, emphysema, and various other respiratory and cardiovascular problems, and have been linked to low birth weight in infants. They also modify weather conditions, damage vegetation, and eat away at rubber, textiles, dyes, and other materials.
http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Environment/E_Overview/E_Overview4.htm

at least smoking doesn't "modify weather conditions, damage vegetation, and eat away at rubber, textiles, dyes, and other materials."

smoke should not be widely publicized and the public, including children, should not be protected from the dangers of 2ndhand smoke?

I just think we could make improvements faster if we spent our time improving emissions, or god forbid, walking.

Us smokers just get a little fed up being the pariahs, when everyone who drives puts out more.

besides, you said "There isn't as strong a link between auto emissions and lung cancer" when there is.

of lung cancer is caused by auto emissions than cigarette smoking. I agree we need to greatly improve auto emissions, greatly improve gas mileage, and walk more. I've never owned a car - I live what I believe. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't address other public health dangers.

Auto emissions: 6-11% of lung cancers.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0603-08.htm
"Studies by the World Health Organization (WHO) and by independent environmental groups in other European countries have come to similarly alarming conclusions.

The report says six to 11 percent of all lung cancer cases identified in people above 30 years of age in France are caused by automobile emissions. This represents 1,713 deaths a year, it says. "

Smoking:
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427
Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in both men and women. An estimated 173,700 new cases of lung cancer and an estimated 160,440 deaths from lung cancer will occur in the United States during 2004.

is alot more repulsive then tobacco smoke (i'm not a user btw)...just like child porn fighters advocate international police statism to combat that horror, and anti drunk driving activists insists on police stop/search anytime/anywhere to combat drunk driving (which really is alot of fun btw)...the thing is, all the anti authoritarian types blame liberalism and the left for these brute force government tactics, when it's the nazipooh/fascists/gopig/police state admirers etc who derive the main benefit (and 2nd hand auto tailpipe smoke truly is an issue, now that otokogi mentioned it!)

:)

and 2ndhand smoke is so overwhelming?

priorities

We get that.

being concerned about toxins that are far more dangerous and released in far greater quantities certainly does not mean that i don't care about children's health, quite the contrary, hello...

:eyes:

in second hand smoke, you don't care very much about their health.

case closed, next...

ingest second hand smoke or not?

hmmmm... let me consider that and i'll get back to you :hi:

I love the smooth pull of a Volkzwagon, don't you?

Then again those little foreign numbers have a good exotic taste as well.

Someone in the 1980s would be astounded at how clean cars like Honda Civic have become. If we consider the internal combustion an interim measure to something cleaner like fuel cell or electric vehicles what would your rebuttal be? We need not derive the energy to enable these vehicles by burning fossil fuels either. It seems all who make this car vs. cigarette comparison feel that situation is static.

Personal transport technology is getting smarter and better while paradoxically cigarettes have become more deadly via chemical alteration.


While I might say that energy intensive personal transport is somewhat a necessity given the current layout of our economy, I fail to see what positive benefits consuming nicotine has in a smokable form. For the utility derived it seems such poor habit.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to other health hazards.

won't last 15 minutes...

how may smoky bars you've been in so far and lived to tell about it?

i am not saying that smoking or 2nd hand smoke is good just pointing out how one is much more dangerous than the other.

burning in a small enclosed space, there wouldn't be any oxygen left to breath and CO levels would get extremely high.

Yes, auto emissions are of great concern. Saying that doesn't mean we shouldn't publicize the dangers of 2ndhand smoke and protect the public against it.

Asphyxiation from water vapor produced from a hydrogen fuel cell?

Will smokers still make this argument in 2055 A.D.?

2ndhand smoke is dangerous, we understand that, and we should do all that we can to protect the public, including children, from it.

Publicizing the dangers of 2ndhand smoke and passing laws to protect the public from it does not preclude publicizing other dangers and protecting from other dangers.

I'm just as concerned about auto emissions as I am about cigarette smoke - in fact, I've never owned a car.

no one has them in order anymore it seems

and I drive a hybrid which has nearly zero emissions.

:shrug:

why don't you answer my question?

oh yeah, you are comparing a cigarette with a car. Can't really answer, can you?

the point is one is MUCH more dangerous to your health than the other.

and I live in California - no smoking in bars or at concerts. As a singer myself, it is pure heaven.

And guess what people can still smoke here - they just go outside. What is the big fucking deal?

the op can't quit.

and airflow through a room is generally limited as well. A confined space plus cigarette smoking = second hand exposure.

A car tail pipe throws exhaust into the big wide open air. The airflow outside isn't easy to calculate (in fact, my brain hurts just thinking about how complex airflow is in the real world).

The two don't compare really well.

see that smog over LA?

put your 'air-flow' meter around that ;->

to see how different the two concepts really are.

cars but out way more toxins than smokers yet no one gets all soup-nazi on them.

hypocrites, imho :hi:

maybe you should hang around for a while before you judge everyone here as hypocrites.

U are a hypocrite.

i know not all DU'ers fall into that category, fortunately ;-)

Because they drive automobiles.

Wonderful thing, logic.

You should try it.

see how important leaving in all the details are to the meaning of a statement.

you should try it.

replies.

lol

If I enjoyed this kind of "reasoning", I'd watch Faux News.

thanks for the laughs :hi:

But would be better spelled out perhaps thusly:

- We outlaw smoking in many places. There is a reason given as to why we do so. That reason, when applied to other things (I think it is called a value judgement) has results that group A does not like - but group A does not mind applying the laws to group B since it does not affect them.

Somewhat like the 'not in my backyard' kind of thing.

The ideas with bars/etc is that people can choose to go to said places - and business will drive whether or not it is a smoking/non-smoking place (ie - choice). With cars, factories, trucking, etc we don't have a choice to go anywhere else. The link being that smoke is emmitted from both items in question. What is good for the goose is good for the gander as it were.

But it goes even deeper than that - how much protection do we lift from the idea and how is it applied elsewhere. The more laws we make to protect life (which is gonna end anyway I think) the more freedoms we give up; and that is fine up to a point, but at what point do we stop?

Every woman I know that has told me she was sexually molested as a child, and the majority of people I have met that have been hospitalized for mental illness either currently or have smoked.

Who cares? If your point is that tailpipes smell so it's okay for a smoker to kill his friends, neighbors and co-workers, you need to work on that theory a little more. Bullets kill, but that doesn't justify smokers, either.

fyi

Nor the other particles in our air(and water).

3000 people die a day in motor vehicle accidents and you are worried about a little second hand exhaust?