What's the point of smoking?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W Where's your proof? Do you have any? Did you read the article investigating the Surgeon-General's reports? No? How surprising...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

Here is my report about how a governmental worker (appointed by Reagan) started the anti-smoking movement, how he got others to get involved in a conspiracy for a "smoke free America by the year 2000", a goal that they did not arrive at with total success. The article linked too does not note any way to confirm the stats used in that acticle.

The C. Everett Koop Papers: Tobacco, Second-Hand Smoke, and the Campaign for a Smoke-Free America

The surgeon general's "epidemiologic criteria for ...[J Chronic Dis. 1984] - PubMed Result

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul Good question: Because.... 1. - They can collect more taxes from cigarettes by adding a sin tax to make up for that they lost from those who quit smoking.

They can't be certain they will make it up when so many have quit. If all quit-no money. You can really sin tax to death, which is what has happened, and still the poor shmooks will smoke away.

2 - The money collected from just the tobacco sales is far less then the money collected from industries that polute - re: oil, auto, military, chemical, computer, logging, housing construction, coal and nuclear energy, and so forth combined. All of which bring pressure on the elected people to stop environmentalists from seeking vast regulations and controls over such industries. The anti-smoking movement is really an anti-environmentalist movement. (as I already went into great detail about in one of my postings in this thread ). By shifting the blame on smokers instead of on all those other industries. RE: speculated estimation as an example - 20 big time lobby groups agenst just 1 lobby group.

It's still money in the coffers. Money is money. Little bit here, little bit there, it adds up.

1 - Cigarette smoke seems more concentrated. That is because you can see it, smell it, and so forth. Where as you cannot see the fumes caused by traffic, etc. ( except when smog limits how far you can see into the distance). None the less if you live in a city you are in fact breathing in mass amounts of toxic fallout even if you do not notice it floating in the air. And those toxic fumes are carried by winds into less populated areas - globally.

Vegetatation probably sucks in a lot of those fumes. Cigarette smoke goes directly at that moment into your lungs in a high concentration, and comes out when you blow, even more toxic. You need more proof about cigarettes versus industrial pollution. Cigarettes are a polluter in other ways. The filters don't break down, and are nasty.

2 - Do you really know just what the amounts of toxic chemicals are contained in cigarette smoke? Do you really know if those teenie weenie trace amounts are enough to represent a theat worth being worried about? What acturally are the concentrated amounts that those trace amounts represent in cigarette smoke? How quickly can the body flush out those tennie weenie trace amounts? Can those trace amounts really stay in the body to build up into a massive dose, such as radeoactive particles do, or will they be processed out of the body like many other things we consume? Have you really been educated about such details? Or, are you allowing your imagination to influence your reasoning things out?

Could say the same for you. It's not teeny weeny trace amounts that are going into your lungs, and elsewhere. Just because a cigarette is small doesn't mean it's not very toxic. I did a term paper on cigarettes in high school which was a long time ago, so I've been educated, plus all these doctors, nurses, Surgeon Generals and highly educated people are all preaching the same thing. Vast conspiracy, I don't think so. The truth is the truth.

3 - Now here is my comment on your very best "fact". Let us say we did a study of 100 people who all live in a city and are effected by smog and industrial polution. You would use 50 people who do not smoke, and 50 people who do smoke. Let's say that you kept track of those people (each person must be the same age... let's say 30 years old) for the rest of their life to find out who got sicker and who died first. But wait, we must also insure that each person in the group also had a family history of cancer, in order to rule out genetics as the main cause. Plus, you must insure that they all eat the same foods because some foods could effect the outcome of the results. Insure they are all in the same healthy condition relative to blood pressure, weight, and so forth. Also, you must insure that each person in the study group is responding to low-level stress in the same manner ( calm or over-reactive ).

Everybody has stress, and most of us have high levels of it, plus it is different for different people. I don't think stress or food is all that significant. The cigarettes give people lung cancer and other cancers in higher frequency than non-smokers, that's all you need to know. Take fifty people and follow the smokers and the non-smokers. The smokers die earlier, and get all sorts of cancers that the other people don't. All people generally have good and bad in their diets. Foods cause higher cholesterol, and some such things, but not lung cancer. Stress probably can cause heart disease, but here again, we all have stress, and some people cope with it better than others. Stress is not a substance. People who have stress alone don't get lung cancer. Lung cancer is almost strictly related to smoking. A small percentage of people will get it that don't smoke, but usually it's all smoker's. We all inhale toxic fumes from cars and factories, so here again, seems insignificant. You won't have a perfect match up with people, but they have done tests on animals, not just mice, and cigarettes come out as highly carcinogenic. These animals weren't exposed to other factors, or were in more similar circumstances. They've even taught dogs to smoke if I'm not mistaken, or to inhale smoke.

Now let's say you were able to put together that perfectly matched group of 100 people to do your study. And you made sure that they all did not have any big changes in their environment or occupations that might alter that match-up for the rest of their lives, and that none of them encounted any situation that might be viewed as a major stress in their lives. Having done all of that you then do your collection of stats. If the satistics then show that smokers are more apt to get sick or to die sooner then non-smokers, you would have pretty dependable proof to support a claim that smoking is bad for people. I would be hard-fit to say that you do not have a good reason for the "claim" made or deducted from that satistical study. But did the epidemiology researchers really do all those things to insure their study contains no random errors? Well, show me the footnotes about how they conducted the research and then I can know. Then I can mark off each requirement on my check list and say "yes" you have got reasonable proof for the claim made. So I do not just have to take their word for it. The claim is still suspect until such is provided. I do not think I am being unreasonable to demand that "show and tell" proof for the pudding.

The testing has been done.http://txtwriter.com/Onscience/Artic...ngcancer2.html

Overcoming an addiction can give you a sense of empowerment and it shows you can take charge of your life. I agree. If one wants that feeling or that sense of self-confidence then I would say " go for it, and may god's speed by with you". The less you need the more you have. Making life more simplistic for your self is not a bad idea at all. I do not have any objection to people doing that. Freedom is a self-created manifestation of will power. If a person gives up watching TV they have more time to spend on more productive things, or more time for their family, if we give up that super-sized meal and eat a more reasonable amount of food (in moderation) we might feel better and have more cash in our pocket to jingle around. (don't spend the extra money of gasoline for a joy ride however). Those are very idealistic things to do. But it has nothing to do with the topic about the health threats of tobacco.

The addiction is part of the threat. It's the whole enchilada.

The extra cash idea however is being forced into the limelight by raising the cost of cigarettes via sin taxes. It would be possible to buy a pack of cigarettes for $1.50 instead of $4.00 (name brands) if it were not for all those "super-sized" taxes. Why not just "overcome" those taxes so that people would have more money in their pockets? Also, having more money in your pocket because you quit wasteing it on tobacco is pointless if you wasted the extra money on something else instead. That would boil down to you selecting what you choose to waste money on, and nothing more. Sure, you might feel better about buying a new TV set instead of cigarettes for a year, and that is your right to pick what turns you on the most, what vice you prefer. I do not object to a person's right to be selective.

People do have choices and this is a good thing, but making something that is terrible for you very costly is smart thinking to me. Makes you have to think twice. This is terrible for your health. Some things might have bad influences here and there, but smoking is a bad choice all of the time. It's never a good choice.

[Nuitana]

I agree with much of what Technosoul said, although I did not read through the whole thread. What I wonder about is the motivation of the state of California and its anti-smoking efforts. Sometimes I think the ads on television exist to ensure that smokers will keep on smoking and fattening the wallet of the state, because they are so outrageous that it is natural to reject them and rebel. There is one that I actually like, and it is of a hamster or somesuch critter mindlessly licking the water bottle, while a man smokes mindlessly. That is actually clever. Most of the ads are ridiculous, and my husband and I, as smokers, are paying for them. The one currently irritating me talks about how second hand smoke can come through the light fixtures of apartment dwellers.

I am certainly not pro-smoking, but smokers are severely and unfairly targeted. Funny how alcohol is sacred - the taxes are much less than the ones on tobacco.

We all can count on dying. I especially agree with Technosoul that stress is a far greater factor in illness than smoking, although certain people (like asthmatics) should absolutely not be smoking. There is such a great focus on lung cancer, but if you look at the percentages previously shown in this thread, many more smokers will NOT get lung cancer than will. Besides that, there are other smoking-related diseases, but I don't for a minute believe that smoking alone causes anything but dirty curtains, carpets, etc.

[Jaaaman]

Smoking is a major drain on one's wallet... I have better thing to do with my money than to blow it on cancer sticks.

[Nuitana]

You are totally right about that, Jaaaman. Smokers are extremely patriotic, whether or not they want to be. The cost of the taxes is far greater than the cost of the product. I think that is the greatest incentive to quit smoking.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe They can't be certain they will make it up when so many have quit. If all quit-no money. You can really sin tax to death, which is what has happened, and still the poor shmooks will smoke away. It's still money in the coffers. Money is money. Little bit here, little bit there, it adds up. Vegetatation probably sucks in a lot of those fumes. Cigarette smoke goes directly at that moment into your lungs in a high concentration, and comes out when you blow, even more toxic. You need more proof about cigarettes versus industrial pollution. Cigarettes are a polluter in other ways. The filters don't break down, and are nasty. Could say the same for you. It's not teeny weeny trace amounts that are going into your lungs, and elsewhere. Just because a cigarette is small doesn't mean it's not very toxic. I did a term paper on cigarettes in high school which was a long time ago, so I've been educated, plus all these doctors, nurses, Surgeon Generals and highly educated people are all preaching the same thing. Vast conspiracy, I don't think so. The truth is the truth. Everybody has stress, and most of us have high levels of it, plus it is different for different people. I don't think stress or food is all that significant. The cigarettes give people lung cancer and other cancers in higher frequency than non-smokers, that's all you need to know. Take fifty people and follow the smokers and the non-smokers. The smokers die earlier, and get all sorts of cancers that the other people don't. All people generally have good and bad in their diets. Foods cause higher cholesterol, and some such things, but not lung cancer. Stress probably can cause heart disease, but here again, we all have stress, and some people cope with it better than others. Stress is not a substance. People who have stress alone don't get lung cancer. Lung cancer is almost strictly related to smoking. A small percentage of people will get it that don't smoke, but usually it's all smoker's. We all inhale toxic fumes from cars and factories, so here again, seems insignificant. You won't have a perfect match up with people, but they have done tests on animals, not just mice, and cigarettes come out as highly carcinogenic. These animals weren't exposed to other factors, or were in more similar circumstances. They've even taught dogs to smoke if I'm not mistaken, or to inhale smoke. The testing has been done.Does smoking cause cancer? The addiction is part of the threat. It's the whole enchilada. People do have choices and this is a good thing, but making something that is terrible for you very costly is smart thinking to me. Makes you have to think twice. This is terrible for your health. Some things might have bad influences here and there, but smoking is a bad choice all of the time. It's never a good choice.

Like I pointed out, the need to please the oil industry outweighed the the fear of not having enough tax money from cigarette sales. Most polticians could care less about the budget as they would just get another loan from China. Duing the Clinton years and beore Bush started the war in Iraq the budget had lots of surplus and so could afford it.

I would agree that cigarette filters are a big problem because they are not bio-degrable like tobacco or paper wrappers. During the 1950s when that famous research was done to prove a "possible link" between smoking and cancer they made the filters out of abestus (forgot how to spell that name), which might have been a cause for the study to show a link. Filters from cigarettes litter up beaches and other places. I personally have used non-filters all my life for that reason. Tobacco companies should stop adding filters to cigarettes because that is one of the main reasons for such bans, it litter problem.

This governmental report states that auto polution is "worse cause of cancer" (taken out of context).

New EPA rule targets toxic car emissions | Oakland Tribune | Find Articles at BNET.com

Clearning products used in home and offices.

Deseret Morning News | Toxic Utah: Mending toxic Utah

EWG To California: Control Toxic Fumes from Household Products | Environmental Working Group

Dear EarthTalk: Are my kids breathing in dangerous exhaust fumes by riding the school bus? : Car Safety

Cleaner exhaust fumes linked to fall in UK suicides : thewest.com.au

Information about chemical sensitivities in next link.....
CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY - IT’S A SERIOUS PROBLEM MORE OFTEN THAN YOU THINK

I cannot find any data on the internet that would compare the amount of chemicals found in cigarette smoke with the amount of chemicals found in car fumes, unless they provide the public with real data we cannot debate which has the most "concentrated amounts" of those chemicals that might effect the rate of cancer or other medical problems.

Study Of Relationship Between Chronic Diseases And Stress

History of stress and chronic disease in medical science and popular culture

NIOSH Publication : 99-101 | STRESS...At Work

I could look up more such links, perhaps with better data.

[Technosoul]

Now I will respond to this article that Monroe provided a link too.

Does smoking cause cancer?

The chemical noted in the report is abundant in auto fumes.

The report did not state what teenie trace amounts are found in cigarette smoke. That chemical is found in just about anything that burns, which has a organic substance.
Unless removed as much as possible in manufacturing.

The report did not note that the mice used in that lab experiment were overdosed relative to their weight.
The mice did not smoke cigarettes.

However, Dr. George Johnson did not do that study his self.

His opinion however should not be discarded in disrespect just because he is a teacher of bilogogy and not a researcher. His main area of interest is "satistical biology" as it relates to evolution in natural environments. Is employed as a teacher at a university and qualified to talk about this topic. His opinions are based on sound science and not epidemiology, for the most part.

He also teaches at a Zoo and has a webpage where he answers questions about biological evolution.
(genetics). And is into plant biology and tobacco is a plant.

Johnson George B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I am not sure if that is the same dr George Johnson as other doctors have that same name.

Home

Dr. George C. Johnson, MD, Psychiatry, located in Gainesville, GA - Free reports and ratings

Lecture: Dr. George Sim Johnston: The Death of Darwinism

The Retrospect of Medicine - Google Book Search

and many others with that name.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Nuitana You are totally right about that, Jaaaman. Smokers are extremely patriotic, whether or not they want to be. The cost of the taxes is far greater than the cost of the product. I think that is the greatest incentive to quit smoking.

I think it is the best incentive to get rid of unfair taxes that target one product only.

Taxes are one of the most preventable solutions for that problem.

I support "affordable smoking products".

Ban the tax collector not the cigarettes.

Buy them on-line or from Native American reservations, smuggle them in form Mexico or Canada.

Support a "sin tax free America".

[Technosoul]

The Smoking Mouse report.

UC TSR&TP

The use of disease prone mice that were genetically created for research.

Mighty Mice - TIME

FOXNews.com - UCLA Seeks Restraining Order Against 'Terrorist' Animal Rights Activists - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Note: I am not a terrorist.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Nuitana I agree with much of what Technosoul said, although I did not read through the whole thread. What I wonder about is the motivation of the state of California and its anti-smoking efforts. Sometimes I think the ads on television exist to ensure that smokers will keep on smoking and fattening the wallet of the state, because they are so outrageous that it is natural to reject them and rebel. There is one that I actually like, and it is of a hamster or somesuch critter mindlessly licking the water bottle, while a man smokes mindlessly. That is actually clever. Most of the ads are ridiculous, and my husband and I, as smokers, are paying for them. The one currently irritating me talks about how second hand smoke can come through the light fixtures of apartment dwellers. I am certainly not pro-smoking, but smokers are severely and unfairly targeted. Funny how alcohol is sacred - the taxes are much less than the ones on tobacco. We all can count on dying. I especially agree with Technosoul that stress is a far greater factor in illness than smoking, although certain people (like asthmatics) should absolutely not be smoking. There is such a great focus on lung cancer, but if you look at the percentages previously shown in this thread, many more smokers will NOT get lung cancer than will. Besides that, there are other smoking-related diseases, but I don't for a minute believe that smoking alone causes anything but dirty curtains, carpets, etc.

Thank you for posting your opinions on this topic. At last, someone does not think I am a total idiot.

By the way, welcome to Volconvo.

[gela]

Does smoking cause cancer?

Clearly, the best way to avoid cancer is not to smoke. While one cigarette is not likely to induce cancer, the accumulated risk of many cigarettes progressively increases the odds of disaster. Imagine locking yourself in a dark closet with a companion armed with a pistol. You spin the companion to mask your location, then say "Shoot!" What are the odds you will be hit by the bullet? Not great. How many times would you let your companion shoot? Every cigarette is one more shot at p53. Using studies of how life expectancy is reduced by smoking cigarettes, life insurance companies have calculated that smoking a single cigarette lowers one’s life expectancy by 10.7 minutes (that is longer than it takes to smoke the cigarette!). Every pack of 20 cigarettes bears an unwritten label" "The price of smoking this pack of cigarettes is 3 1/2 hours of your life."

That nicely counters your 'trace amounts' therefore harmless theory ^

The chemical noted in the report is abundant in auto fumes.

Yes, its in car fumes. That doesn't change the fact that it is also in cigarettes.
To say that it is abundant in car fumes is a lie. It would make up less then 1% of car fumes. I studied air pollution at school, and this chemical wasn't even mentioned. Carbon Monoxide was, but benzopyrene wasn't.

It also doesn't change the fact that you are directly inhaling it, while the rest of us are breathing in heavily diluted samples of it. Thus why smokers still get lung cancer more then the rest of us.

The report did not state what teenie trace amounts are found in cigarette smoke. That chemical is found in just about anything that burns, which has a organic substance. Unless removed as much as possible in manufacturing.

We dont breath in other sources of the chemical directly, and we breath in very dilute samples of it. We also don't breath it in 40 times a day. (I've forgotten how many cigarettes are in a pack again..)

Cigarette Litter --Filters

3. Additives to tobacco: Potentially hundreds of additives are mixed with tobacco during the manufacturing process. Additives to smoking tobacco include flavorings and humectants that are used to keep tobacco moist. According to a publication written for the tobacco industry, additives can constitute ten percent of the weight of the "tobacco" portion of a cigarette, and four per cent of the entire cigarette. The complete list of 1,400 potential tobacco additives, which include sweeteners and flavors such cocoa, rum, licorice, sugar, and fruit juices is considered a trade secret. Since tobacco is not classified as a food or drug, there are no legal maximums on agricultural chemicals or chemical additives cigarettes may contain. A widely used cigarette additive is menthol with its ability to provide flavor and to serve as an anesthetic. When burned, many additives form new compounds, possessing unique properties. For example, glycerol produces acrolein, a chemical which has been found to interfere with the normal clearing of the lungs (Whelan, 1984) "Tar" in cigarette filters: The "tar" often referred to in connection with cigarettes is not a black petroleum tar product, but instead refers to the hundreds of substances and additives found in tobacco. Tar, when cool, is a sticky yellow-brown substance and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that it is composed of organic and inorganic chemicals, including some carcinogens. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission defines tar as "total particulate matter…less nicotine and water." Contents of Cigarette Smoke: When smoked, the tobacco and additives in a cigarette undergo complex chemical processes to form smoke that contains more than 4000 chemicals, including carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, nicotine, ammonia, arsenic and vinyl chloride (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989). Forty-three constituents of tobacco smoke are known carcinogens including nitrosamines, quinoline, benzpyrene, cadmium, ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and hydrogen sulfide (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989, and other sources).

(first, note how all the studies cited were done in the 1980's.. about 20 years ago this stuff was proven)

So, in car fumes we have about 1% of questionable chemicales.
In Cigarettes, 10% of the tobacco is made of additives.
Its a shame we can't look closer, but it seems that the exact amounts are 'trade secrets'. I wonder what they have to hide?

The report did not note that the mice used in that lab experiment were overdosed relative to their weight. The mice did not smoke cigarettes.

The report went in chronological order. It admited itself that the mice wasn't enough evidence to prove tobacco was the problem. Benzo pyrene was the conclusive evidence.

His opinion however should not be discarded in disrespect just because he is a teacher of bilogogy and not a researcher. His main area of interest is "satistical biology" as it relates to evolution in natural environments. Is employed as a teacher at a university and qualified to talk about this topic. His opinions are based on sound science and not epidemiology, for the most part. He also teaches at a Zoo and has a webpage where he answers questions about biological evolution. (genetics). And is into plant biology and tobacco is a plant.

Im not sure about how things work over there. But our university lecturers also do research.


If you read the article, you'll see how genetics does relate to smoking. The chemical alters the DNA of cells.

[gela]

Toxic Chemicals in Cigarettes

A "Global Air Monitoring Study" (7 September 2006) of 1,212 indoor workplaces in 24 different countries at found that: Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 317 ug/m3 in smoking workplaces, and 36 ug/m3 in smokefree workplaces (89% less). Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 261 ug/m3 in smoking restaurants, and 36 ug/m3 in smokefree restaurants. Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 494 ug/m3 in smoking bars, and 28 ug/m3 in smokefree bars. Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 265 ug/m3 in smoking workplaces in the U.S., and 22 ug/m3 in smokefree workplaces. The" Air Quality Index" classifies PM 2.5 levels above 65 ug/m3 as UNHEALTHY, above 150 ug/m3 as VERY UNHEALTHY, and above 250 ug/m3 as HAZARDOUS. To protect public health, the US EPA has set a limit of 15 ug/m3 as the average annual level of PM 2.5 outdoors. In September 2006, the EPA lowered the limit for average daily level of PM 2.5 from 65 ug/m3 to 35 ug/m3 . To find outdoor PM 2.5 levels throughout the U.S. today, go to PM2.5 Sample Maps (Today's Hourly Animations - Points).

hmm.. fromwhat I can tell, out doors the level of air pollution is only allowed to be 15ug/meter cubed. But in smoking bars the level is over 300.

Logic tells us that we're more likely to get cancer in the smoking environment then we are outside with the car fumes.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Toxic Chemicals in Cigarettes hmm.. fromwhat I can tell, out doors the level of air pollution is only allowed to be 15ug/meter cubed. But in smoking bars the level is over 300. Logic tells us that we're more likely to get cancer in the smoking environment then we are outside with the car fumes.

1. You gun anology is missleading. each bullet could kill you by it'self. Each cigarette or trace amount cannot. What that anology would mean in a real interpretation is that it would take thousands of bullets to kill you before the last one does you in. Also the trace amounts do not build up over time, they are flushed out of the body through natural processes. Where do they come up with their corny ideas?

2. I am glad you admitted that your class on polution did teach you all the real facts, that is no surprise to me.

inhaling and directly inhaling is the same thing. Unless you wear a mask to filter out smog.

3. Let's say you smoke a pack of cigs a day. (20 per pack), and it takes 5 mins to smoke each one. That would add up to 80 mins - so you are breathing cigarette smoke for only one hour and 20 mins per day. Meanwhile if you did not smoke you would be breathing in air polution every moment of eveyday for 24 hours a day. (remember also that during the 5 mins to smoke you only inhale the smoke about 10 times or less. That would reduce the "direct inhaling of smoke" to about 10 mins per day as compared to constantly breathing in air polution all day and all night. (24 hours as compared to 10 mins to directly inhale cigarette smoke). Using the correct satistics smoking would only be a minor factor as compared to breathing air polution form cars and industry.

The trouble is you used the wrong math. But tricky stuff does not work on this rare intellect.

4. It is true that things are added to maintain freshness and so forth, but the additives apparently do not overstep the standards set by the government. I would not object to the government banning additives that might be harmful. Just like I prefer organic foods over those with additives. For example: I have a webpage to sell stuff on line but I cannot export after shave lotions, American made toothpaste, and things used by women for make up, because Canada has banned such products that also contain harmful chemicals in them. So no problem, get rid of undue additives from cigarettes. PS - many such additives have been removed following that medical report back in the 1980s.
PS - the additives in fossil fuel are not the problem - the problematic stuff is in the oil and gasoline which create particles in the air when burned.

5. Alters the DNA of cells? They used hairless mice and inserted the chemicals into their skin with a needle, rubbed it on their skin. And did so on mice that were genetically altered to have low immune systems to all diseases. What else would you expect from such a curel experiment on animals. And you want me to trust those researchers who do not give a damm about the suffering and the premature death of little mice to make a claim they care about my health. Fat chance of that ever happening. Why don't they shave their own hairy face and rub concenrated amounts of some chemical on their own skin til they are raw? The real rats are not the ones in the cages.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Toxic Chemicals in Cigarettes hmm.. fromwhat I can tell, out doors the level of air pollution is only allowed to be 15ug/meter cubed. But in smoking bars the level is over 300. Logic tells us that we're more likely to get cancer in the smoking environment then we are outside with the car fumes.

Those stats are bias in that they are based on the notion ahead of time that cigarette smoke is the same thing as smog polution. Air polution can be both okay or unhealthy depending upon what is poluting the air.

Smoke from a cigarette is not as deadly as fumes coming out of the tailpipe of a car. How long would you survive in a garage full of tailpipe smoke as compared to being in a garage full of tobacco smoke? You are comparing apples with oranges and that is poor debating.

That report is designed to cause you to make the wrong "logical" deduction.

Now lets look at a map (from your link). the yellow dots represent the highest air concentrations. One - City of L.A. and Riverside, both areas of heavy auto transportation and industy. Bakersfield - Location of Chevron Oil operations. Other areas have lower amounts of air polution, open areas set that are not populated as much remain grey.

PM2.5 Sample Maps (Today's Hourly Animations - Points)

Now if you then went all over most of the workplaces (etc.) would be in areas with little air-polution. Which would give more results on an average that rooms with smoking people have higher concentration amounts then areas outside. However 2nd hand smoke represents next to no health risk relative to terminal illnesses such as cancer or heart attacks. Where as areas with concentrated auto traffic would. If they did a world wide study then you would even have a lot more spaces where industry or traffic is not a big factor relative to air polution. And different kinds of cigarettes made in those countries. The whole study is full of many random errors and can cause miss-interpretations of the data as it was so written. AKA - not sound science.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul Those stats are bias in that they are based on the notion ahead of time that cigarette smoke is the same thing as smog polution. Air polution can be both okay or unhealthy depending upon what is poluting the air. Smoke from a cigarette is not as deadly as fumes coming out of the tailpipe of a car. How long would you survive in a garage full of tailpipe smoke as compared to being in a garage full of tobacco smoke? You are comparing apples with oranges and that is poor debating.

Cigarette smoke is pollution, and it's bad pollution, so lumping it in with other pollutions isn't bias. Mostly air pollution is considered not good. Never heard of pollution being good.

Deadly is deadly. What's coming out of a tailpipe is carbon monoxide which is a deadly poison. Cigarettes have all sorts of deadly poisons in them. Cigarettes don't usually kill immediately, but they can cause instant death.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Today/20...49321-sun.html

However 2nd hand smoke represents next to no health risk relative to terminal illnesses such as cancer or heart attacks. Where as areas with concentrated auto traffic would.

Cigarette smoke has a higher concentration of carcinogens than auto exhaust. Think this is stated in the link above.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Cigarette smoke is pollution, and it's bad pollution, so lumping it in with other pollutions isn't bias. Mostly air pollution is considered not good. Never heard of pollution being good. Deadly is deadly. What's coming out of a tailpipe is carbon monoxide which is a deadly poison. Cigarettes have all sorts of deadly poisons in them. Cigarettes don't usually kill immediately, but they can cause instant death. London Free Press - Today - Most cancer risks traced to smoking, unhealthy diet Cigarette smoke has a higher concentration of carcinogens than auto exhaust. Think this is stated in the link above.

Interesting that the linked webpages contains ads for Ford, a auto dealer who sells "tailpipes". Not that this might suggest bias or anything like that.

Dr. Richard Beliveau was just parroting news ariticles that he had read, like they rest of you do. He main goal is to sell his book about alternative health care.

NRM: Dr Béliveau, cancer samurai

Note once again that the World Health Organization was involved, as I have been talking a lot about them through-out this thread. That group gained a bad reputation for being involved in some of the bio-weapons research and testing being concducted by the U.S. government (before international laws banned that practice). The WHO was scientifically linked to the distribution of AIDS in Africa, which evidence was later called a " crazy conspiracy" by the government.

TRACKING THE REAL GENOCIDE
( a investigation that got Obama in trouble when it was mentioned by the Rev. Wright).

WHO is offically funded by the U.S. National Insitututes of Health, supported largely with governmental monies or grants as provided by Congress.

So our expert witness is selling his book about how diet can help cure cancer and advertising from the Ford motor company is used to pay for his webpage.

However, in your repley you overlooked all my explainations that smoking a cigarette would amount to only about 10 mins per day of acturally inhaling tobacco smoke, compared to 24 hours of inhailing the toxic particles in the air. You overlook the fact that we do not inhale smoke constantly for 24 hours each day. You guys only cherry pick a line or two and then I must repeat all the stuff you directly avoided making a rebuttle for.

Now, what is good polution. The air can be poluted with pollen as plants reproduce, lots of seedlings are carred in the wind form one plant to another. That is basically a good thing because otherwise plants cannnot reproduce and spread to other areas. None the less, people with defective breathing can suffer because of that and even "choke to death" because those particles get stuck in their breathing passages.
It can cause servere wheezing for some people who are abnormal. As well as trigger other alergic reactions. Often times that reaction is blamed on cigarette smoke. It all has to do with being alergic or sensitive to the by-products of nature. Nature in effect, weeds out abnormal humans in different ways, allowing the more fit to survive.
Evolve your immune system or die, that is just how it works, like it or not.

BBC NEWS | Health | Medical notes | Exhaust emissions

And it gets worse.

CHEC Articles: Traffic Congestion: The Chemicals in Your Car

HealthyCar.org: The Consumer Guide to Toxic Chemicals in Cars : TreeHugger

Chesapeake Bay Journal: Study finds auto emissions to be leading source of some Bay toxics - November 2000

Auto Exhaust Emissions May Be Killing Children

Yosemite Association - Nature Notes

Now I know that the object of the government is to downplay the effects of industrial and auto polution and to replace that with a fear of cigarette smoke, so that they do not have to regulate or enforce regulations as much as they should be. So that companies will not move out of the USA and go elsewhere, in order to avoid the expenses of such regulation. Putting the national net profit above people's health. Like most of the wars the war on smokers is one that is conducted for "economical reasons" to safeguard our national economy by having lots of production, factories, and manufacting companies - who in turn provide jobs for the working class. In order to enforce such regulation to prevent too much polution a company must keep constant monitoring of their actvity and provide endless amounts of paperwork to give to the government, and they must wade through mountains of red tape, and deal with a constant bombardment of new standards that state or federal politics will generate. Big headache, so they move to Mexico or someplace to cut such overhead expendatures and time-consuming reporting. As they move away we end up with job shortages and a economy heading into depressive lows.

A paradox, is the regulation worse then the polution we are trying to prevent? If they can make everyone think that smoking is the main cause of polution that creates a health risk, then they can downgrade the demands for such regulation ( as Bu