IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags smoke , hand

Reply
Old 28th February 2003, 09:58 AM   #81
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,791
"But if you agree with workplace health and safety laws in general, I don't see how you can justify making an exception for tobacco."

I agree with the workplace non-smoking laws and other public places laws, I don't agree with forcing private businesses to become non-smoking. I also don't support junk-science that the EPA uses on a consistent basis.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2003, 11:27 AM   #82
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I agree with the workplace non-smoking laws...I don't agree with forcing private businesses to become non-smoking.
Uh, aren't those two positions completely contradictary?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2003, 11:35 AM   #83
zakur
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,264
Quote:
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I agree with the workplace non-smoking laws and other public places laws, I don't agree with forcing private businesses to become non-smoking.
If a private business has employees, isn't it a workplace?
zakur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2003, 12:05 AM   #84
JAR
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,142
I doubt the second hand smoke studies that say 50,000 people a year die from it are accurate. Anyone who has inhaled both second hand and first hand smoke can tell you that the tingling feeling nicotine provides is not present with second hand smoke which suggests that people aren't getting enough tobacco in their system from second hand smoke for it to do any harm.But I do support having non-smoking areas because second hand smoke has an irritating aroma. My older brother rightly compared smoking around other people to breaking wind when one is around other people.
JAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2003, 05:50 AM   #85
NWilner
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 56
Not really so, JAR. Serum cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, is elevated significantly in passive smokers. Beyond that observation, your remark implies a threshold for carcinogenic or pathogenic effect, but most thinking today supports a linear no threshold model for dose response.
__________________
Norwood S. Wilner
NWilner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2003, 09:06 PM   #86
JAR
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally posted by NWilner
most thinking today supports a linear no threshold model for dose response.
I agree with you assuming that you mean that the dosage required to get a nicotine buzz, precancerous lesions(which cause cancer) or any other tobacco related disease differs from person to person. I'll believe the 50,000 death toll from now on until I have good evidence that it is inaccurate.
JAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2003, 09:27 PM   #87
NWilner
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 56
Well, I don't necessarily adopt 50K, because I think the real "number" is probably a matter of some speculation, but....

The nicotine buzz you mention is definitely affected by individual factors, especially tolerance from chronic use. Neversmokers may feel nicotine in much less concentration that experienced smokers.

Not only cotintine but also certain tobacco specific nitrosamines, very carcinogenic compounds found only in tobacco, are found in the urine of passively exposed nonsmokers. There is no way for these compounds, known as nitrosonornicotine (NNN), NNK, and NAM, to get into the body of nonsmokers, except through sidestream cig smoke.

For one I don't want these carcinogens, in any quantity, in me, if I can help it.
__________________
Norwood S. Wilner
NWilner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2003, 01:20 AM   #88
JAR
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,142
Re: Re: 2nd Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally posted by Valmorian


I've always found it bizarre that Penn frowns upon liquor consumption, but then turns around and smokes.

Strange.
I'd rather be in a room with a person smoking than be on the road with a drunk driver.
JAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2003, 06:48 AM   #89
NWilner
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 56
Sure, but to be fair, the comparison would be whether you would want to be in a room with a drinker or with a smoker.

Unlike tobacco, etoh *can* be used safely and responsibly. Consumption of 2 oz or so per day seems to be beneficial.

This does not condone intoxicated driving, whether intoxication comes from alcohol or drugs.
__________________
Norwood S. Wilner
NWilner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2003, 06:36 PM   #90
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,663
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2363894

Second hand smoke linked to children's tooth decay.

arcticpenguin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.