Posted on 06/14/2002 6:38:39 AM PDT by Just another Joe
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
World No-Tobacco Day 2001 was yesterday. Sponsored by the World Health Organization, the theme was secondhand smoke. The event's poster featured "Secondhand Smoke Kills" emblazoned over a photo of the Marlboro Man riding into the sunset.
WHO proclaimed, "Second-hand smoke is a real and significant threat to public health. Supported by two decades of evidence, the scientific community now agrees that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
WHO proclaimed, "Second-hand smoke is a real and significant threat to public health. Supported by two decades of evidence, the scientific community now agrees that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smokeWhat a bunch of bullmodell. Just about any workplace toxin is regulated by what is called a "permissable exposure level", or a PEL for short. There's often both an instantaneous PEL and an 8-hour average PEL.
There are a few chemicals that have PELs which are effectively zero. They are so nasty that if you were to get a concentrated dose of them, you'd need either an ambulance or a coroner immediately. Yet people ingest concentrated amounts of tobacco smoke not only routinely, but for long periods of time.
This statement insults the intelligence of anyone with the slightest clue about how either chemical-related occupational safety or basic toxicology works. Quite clearly, if someone can puff away all day, the mere smell of a cigarette isn't going to make anyone else sick, except perhaps for psychological reasons.
As is the case whenever the left ignores or warps science, the objective is political and anti-freedom.
-Eric
It's not just the left. The RINO right is into it too.
And they have the audacity to say smokers and supporters are dupes of the tobacco industry..........BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that, under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). For example, various studies referenced by Guerin et al. in The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measurement indicate that many substances are well below the individual permissible exposure level [e.g., acetaldehyde values in enclosed places varied from 65 to 1080 g/m3 (Page 295) and acrolein values ranged from 20-300 g/m3 (Page 295-296)]. It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that, under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). For example, various studies referenced by Guerin et al. in The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measurement indicate that many substances are well below the individual permissible exposure level [e.g., acetaldehyde values in enclosed places varied from 65 to 1080 g/m3 (Page 295) and acrolein values ranged from 20-300 g/m3 (Page 295-296)]. It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.One of the reasons the Health Nazis are so adamant about banning smoking in bars is the alleged exposure of workers to "second hand smoke". This resource thoroughly debunks this trash.
Only an idiot or someone with a hidden agenda would claim with a straight face that there is no difference between an occasional odor of smoke (or even a light waft) and the kind of heavier exposure one would see with multiple smokers in an enclosed space. Yet the Crusaders seek to imply exactly that.
-Eric
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.