A) Car fumes are bad for you but not as bad as smoking
B) Smoking is deadly and shortens life span considerably
C) Fumes from smoking are completely harmless in any capacity and at any length of time.
See how this doesn't add up? Guess when parents ask you to smoke outside when you spark up and their 3 year old starts to cough they must just be brainwashed.
We were talking about two different things. When I'm talking about 6 cigarettes per year, I'm talking about exposure in a bar or night club. Studies on ETS & disease are based on a smoker living with a non smoker - which is why they don't apply to bars and it is a major flaw in the anti smoking lobby groups argument that smoking should be banned - it's comparing apples and oranges. --
-- The point I am trying to make is that the anti smoking lobby groups have over exaggerated the risks when it comes to ETS in bars because of these studies. Exposure to 6 cigarettes/yr in no way justifies a blanket ban on smoking as we are exposed to more environmental polution so in no way can they say that the 6 ciggies/yr in bars causes lung cancer.
Also, I'm not referring to the average non-smoker who works in a non-smoking facility and doesnt hang out at bars. I'm referring to the person who married a smoker and spent decades in the same domain. I used to smoke over 480 cigarettes in my 1brd apartment I shared with my gf (didn't smoke) each week. She constantly coughed and got bronchitis as did I. Everything stunk of chemicals and it never left us not matter what. If you think that is the same as 6 cigarettes a year, you are crazy.
Just 3 drops of nicotine on your skin can kill a 150lb adult human. As I have stated before autopsies of non smokers who lived in very high polluted areas reveal some lung damage but nothing compared to smokers or spouses who lived with smokers for long periods of time. Also, you are answering your own lie. You stated that ESH does not exist. Now you are stating its the equivalent of smoking 480 cigarettes over a lifetime. Which is it?
Also, their is no "anti-smoking propaganda". Facts are facts. Personally (as an ex-smoker) I am against outrageous taxation of tobacco. I am against ambushing smokers at red-lights and shaming them because they smoke. I am against forcing them into the cold to smoke when they are at a bar. But facts are facts. It is a super deadly toxic device that harms the user and people in its direct vicinity. I wish you could have seen my apartment when I moved out years ago. Tell me thats safe.
What toxicology reports? It's not a myth at all. Tens of thousands of non smoking spouses have contracted Lung Cancers who lived with a smoker. Lung Cancer is rare in a non smoker so how do you think they got it? So, your saying smoking is this extreme deadly activity only if ingested directly? But, it's completely safe to sit next to it forever? Put s shirt you smoked in into a box and dont open it or smoke in that area for 3 years. It will still stink of smoke and other chemicals.
Absolute stupidity. You find me one, just one of that "over 80% of studies" that shows that car fumes are more lethal than smoking and I will give you everything I own. Compare toxicologic deaths compared to smokers deaths? Off the top of my head its something like a couple thousand a year to over 400k. Smoking has over 60 known carcinogens. Are you trying to tell me cars emit more? Such a stupid, ignorant statement. that you will not be able to post one scientific study to back it.
God, I am agreeing with you, idiot. SMOKING IS MORE DEADLY THAN CAR FUMES! Half of all life long smokers die of a smoking related illness, they die on average 10yrs earlier than a life long non smoker.
I am saying second hand smoke doesn't kill. It's a myth. A decade of studies in Europe by air quality experts at Covance Laboratories in England show a non smoker inhales on average the equivalent of 6 cigarettes a year in passive smoke. Over a lifespan of 80yrs that would be 480 cigarettes --
-- the average person smokes 15 ciggies a day - 5475/yr. The results of a 50yr study published in the British Medical Journal in 2004 on smoking in relation to life expectancy found that ppl who smoke an average of 15 cigarettes & ceased smoking at 30 lived as long as a life long non smoker. From 18-30, that's 65700 cigarettes. Over 136 times more than you inhale in ETS over a life time.
Again, have a read over the basic principles of toxicology and stop buying the anti smoking propoganda.
Wow, talk about spinning a study. Of course if you stop smoking at 30 years old your body will heal (mostly) and you will live a life (hopefully) close to the normal life expectancy rate. If you smoked only 1 cigarette a day your body would not start the healing process. You are correlatiing stopping the habit completely with usage over the long term. Two completely different things. Living with a smoker who smokes very few cigarettes will not allow the spouse's system to start healing.
I've said it before, the basic principles of toxicology are mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it is the dose.
65,700 cigarettes over a 12 yr period is a hell of a lot more arsenic, ammonia and the 30 known carcinogens pumped into the body over a shorter period of time that the body has to deal with than 480 over a whole life span. It is much easier for the body to cope with a small amount of carcinogens over a long period of time than the other way around.
Think about it logically, compare 480 cigarettes over a lifespan to the amount of deadly smog we inhale from cradle to grave... you can't tell me you honestly believe that those 480 cigarettes spaced over 80yrs is going to increase your risk of cancer more than the gallons upon gallons of smog. Car smog might'n have the same number of carcinogens that tobacco smoke does, but the dose of the carcinogens and toxins is much higher.
Not onyl can I tell you that, it can be proved over and over again. as I stated earlier how many deaths do we get from car exist fumes (non suicidal) and lung carcinomas and other cancers from people who lived in households with smokers? Logically, go to any persons domain who smokes inside it. Every piece of fabric, nook, and cranny is covered in tobacco chemicals and nicotine. Those chemicals reside in it for years. No, the dose is not higher is autos and you will find no such study......
Also, Tobacco companies add over 4000 chemicals to those cigarettes. One thing they also do is sweep the floors at tobacco factories and add that to smokes as well. Great huh? Hate hate hate hearing people say that car fumes are as bad or worse than smoking. Please read something for once.
What he is saying is true. How is this fraudulant news or a scam?
Studies into passive smoking in relation to lung cancer show no statistical significance. And why would it when you think about it... we inhale far more toxic & carcinogenic chemicals from combusted petrochemicals sitting in traffic or walking down the street in the city from the day we're born to the day we die than we do sitting next to someone smoking a few tobacco leaves.
Goodness, can't stand people like you. Not sure what reports you've read but their is a truckload of evidence that shows secondhand smoke can be fatal. Also, any pathologist will tell you that city dwellers lungscompared to smokers lungs are no comparison. you are guessing and guessing wrong that high polluted areas are worse for you than smoking. They aren't. Don't smokers live in those area's as well? When it comes to your health, don't guess. It can be fatal.
Of course there is no comparison of a smokers lungs to big city dweller. I dont deny for a second that smoking kills. However, ETS doesn't. A non smoker does inhale more carcinogens from the smog produced by countless cars on the roads compared to the small amount in a few burning tobacco leaves.
Over 80% of studies into ETS & smoking related illness show no link - you cant deny the evidence. It's the basic principles of toxicology: mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it is the dose.
So to sum up, you have stated that
A) Car fumes are bad for you but not as bad as smoking
B) Smoking is deadly and shortens life span considerably
C) Fumes from smoking are completely harmless in any capacity and at any length of time.
See how this doesn't add up? Guess when parents ask you to smoke outside when you spark up and their 3 year old starts to cough they must just be brainwashed.
SeanP7195 3 years ago
We were talking about two different things. When I'm talking about 6 cigarettes per year, I'm talking about exposure in a bar or night club. Studies on ETS & disease are based on a smoker living with a non smoker - which is why they don't apply to bars and it is a major flaw in the anti smoking lobby groups argument that smoking should be banned - it's comparing apples and oranges. --
araleztri 3 years ago
-- The point I am trying to make is that the anti smoking lobby groups have over exaggerated the risks when it comes to ETS in bars because of these studies. Exposure to 6 cigarettes/yr in no way justifies a blanket ban on smoking as we are exposed to more environmental polution so in no way can they say that the 6 ciggies/yr in bars causes lung cancer.
araleztri 3 years ago
Also, I'm not referring to the average non-smoker who works in a non-smoking facility and doesnt hang out at bars. I'm referring to the person who married a smoker and spent decades in the same domain. I used to smoke over 480 cigarettes in my 1brd apartment I shared with my gf (didn't smoke) each week. She constantly coughed and got bronchitis as did I. Everything stunk of chemicals and it never left us not matter what. If you think that is the same as 6 cigarettes a year, you are crazy.
SeanP7195 3 years ago
Just 3 drops of nicotine on your skin can kill a 150lb adult human. As I have stated before autopsies of non smokers who lived in very high polluted areas reveal some lung damage but nothing compared to smokers or spouses who lived with smokers for long periods of time. Also, you are answering your own lie. You stated that ESH does not exist. Now you are stating its the equivalent of smoking 480 cigarettes over a lifetime. Which is it?
SeanP7195 3 years ago
Ohh, and its an average of 14 years, not 10 saved by not smoking.
SeanP7195 3 years ago
Also, their is no "anti-smoking propaganda". Facts are facts. Personally (as an ex-smoker) I am against outrageous taxation of tobacco. I am against ambushing smokers at red-lights and shaming them because they smoke. I am against forcing them into the cold to smoke when they are at a bar. But facts are facts. It is a super deadly toxic device that harms the user and people in its direct vicinity. I wish you could have seen my apartment when I moved out years ago. Tell me thats safe.
SeanP7195 3 years ago
What toxicology reports? It's not a myth at all. Tens of thousands of non smoking spouses have contracted Lung Cancers who lived with a smoker. Lung Cancer is rare in a non smoker so how do you think they got it? So, your saying smoking is this extreme deadly activity only if ingested directly? But, it's completely safe to sit next to it forever? Put s shirt you smoked in into a box and dont open it or smoke in that area for 3 years. It will still stink of smoke and other chemicals.
SeanP7195 3 years ago
Absolute stupidity. You find me one, just one of that "over 80% of studies" that shows that car fumes are more lethal than smoking and I will give you everything I own. Compare toxicologic deaths compared to smokers deaths? Off the top of my head its something like a couple thousand a year to over 400k. Smoking has over 60 known carcinogens. Are you trying to tell me cars emit more? Such a stupid, ignorant statement. that you will not be able to post one scientific study to back it.
SeanP7195 3 years ago
God, I am agreeing with you, idiot. SMOKING IS MORE DEADLY THAN CAR FUMES! Half of all life long smokers die of a smoking related illness, they die on average 10yrs earlier than a life long non smoker.
I am saying second hand smoke doesn't kill. It's a myth. A decade of studies in Europe by air quality experts at Covance Laboratories in England show a non smoker inhales on average the equivalent of 6 cigarettes a year in passive smoke. Over a lifespan of 80yrs that would be 480 cigarettes --
araleztri 3 years ago
-- the average person smokes 15 ciggies a day - 5475/yr. The results of a 50yr study published in the British Medical Journal in 2004 on smoking in relation to life expectancy found that ppl who smoke an average of 15 cigarettes & ceased smoking at 30 lived as long as a life long non smoker. From 18-30, that's 65700 cigarettes. Over 136 times more than you inhale in ETS over a life time.
Again, have a read over the basic principles of toxicology and stop buying the anti smoking propoganda.
araleztri 3 years ago
Wow, talk about spinning a study. Of course if you stop smoking at 30 years old your body will heal (mostly) and you will live a life (hopefully) close to the normal life expectancy rate. If you smoked only 1 cigarette a day your body would not start the healing process. You are correlatiing stopping the habit completely with usage over the long term. Two completely different things. Living with a smoker who smokes very few cigarettes will not allow the spouse's system to start healing.
SeanP7195 3 years ago
I've said it before, the basic principles of toxicology are mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it is the dose.
65,700 cigarettes over a 12 yr period is a hell of a lot more arsenic, ammonia and the 30 known carcinogens pumped into the body over a shorter period of time that the body has to deal with than 480 over a whole life span. It is much easier for the body to cope with a small amount of carcinogens over a long period of time than the other way around.
araleztri 3 years ago
Think about it logically, compare 480 cigarettes over a lifespan to the amount of deadly smog we inhale from cradle to grave... you can't tell me you honestly believe that those 480 cigarettes spaced over 80yrs is going to increase your risk of cancer more than the gallons upon gallons of smog. Car smog might'n have the same number of carcinogens that tobacco smoke does, but the dose of the carcinogens and toxins is much higher.
araleztri 3 years ago
Not onyl can I tell you that, it can be proved over and over again. as I stated earlier how many deaths do we get from car exist fumes (non suicidal) and lung carcinomas and other cancers from people who lived in households with smokers? Logically, go to any persons domain who smokes inside it. Every piece of fabric, nook, and cranny is covered in tobacco chemicals and nicotine. Those chemicals reside in it for years. No, the dose is not higher is autos and you will find no such study......
SeanP7195 3 years ago
Also, Tobacco companies add over 4000 chemicals to those cigarettes. One thing they also do is sweep the floors at tobacco factories and add that to smokes as well. Great huh? Hate hate hate hearing people say that car fumes are as bad or worse than smoking. Please read something for once.
SeanP7195 3 years ago
What he is saying is true. How is this fraudulant news or a scam?
Studies into passive smoking in relation to lung cancer show no statistical significance. And why would it when you think about it... we inhale far more toxic & carcinogenic chemicals from combusted petrochemicals sitting in traffic or walking down the street in the city from the day we're born to the day we die than we do sitting next to someone smoking a few tobacco leaves.
araleztri 3 years ago
Goodness, can't stand people like you. Not sure what reports you've read but their is a truckload of evidence that shows secondhand smoke can be fatal. Also, any pathologist will tell you that city dwellers lungscompared to smokers lungs are no comparison. you are guessing and guessing wrong that high polluted areas are worse for you than smoking. They aren't. Don't smokers live in those area's as well? When it comes to your health, don't guess. It can be fatal.
SeanP7195 3 years ago
Of course there is no comparison of a smokers lungs to big city dweller. I dont deny for a second that smoking kills. However, ETS doesn't. A non smoker does inhale more carcinogens from the smog produced by countless cars on the roads compared to the small amount in a few burning tobacco leaves.
Over 80% of studies into ETS & smoking related illness show no link - you cant deny the evidence. It's the basic principles of toxicology: mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it is the dose.
araleztri 3 years ago
smoking is good for you only if you have a lot of money to spend
dan020350 4 years ago
Media manipulation... We are *this* far from the edge of losing freedom of thought forever.
vineetgovindagupta 4 years ago
But the link is still unconclusive. How is this fraudulent?
flamingoroad 4 years ago