Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Second Hand Smokescreens
WWW.FOXNEWS.COM ^ | June 04, 2001 | Steven Milloy

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 ...


TOPICS: Education; Health/Medicine; Miscellaneous; Science
KEYWORDS: butts; niconazi; pufflist; secondhandsmoke; smoke; smokers
A little over a week old but didn't see it posted anywhere.
1 posted on 06/14/2002 6:38:39 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Puff_List
Nice title, huh?
2 posted on 06/14/2002 6:39:27 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red-dawg; Fiddlstix; RikaStrom; robomatik; ladyinred; error99; Max McGarrity; Gabz; sneakypete...
Excellent article that shows some agendas and some tactics of the anti-smokers.
3 posted on 06/14/2002 6:41:12 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
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
What 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

4 posted on 06/14/2002 6:58:56 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
As is the case whenever the left ignores or warps science, the objective is political and anti-freedom.

It's not just the left. The RINO right is into it too.

5 posted on 06/14/2002 7:02:22 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Bump!
6 posted on 06/14/2002 7:14:24 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
When the Lounge opens this afternoonn - I'll get everyone up to speed of the tactics being used by the antis here in Delaware!!!!

And they have the audacity to say smokers and supporters are dupes of the tobacco industry..........BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

7 posted on 06/14/2002 7:27:53 AM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Thanks, Joe. Buncha commies.
8 posted on 06/14/2002 7:43:40 AM PDT by Argh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
That's a keeper joe. Good find!
9 posted on 06/14/2002 7:45:44 AM PDT by KS Flyover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KS Flyover; aaaDOC
Thank aaaDOC for this one.
He posted it on another thread and I told him that it deserved a thread of it's own.
10 posted on 06/14/2002 7:52:36 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Bingo, Eric, and thanks for pointing out the PELs standards. There's a letter on OSHA's website in answer to a rabid anti's demand that they step in and make environmental tobacco smoke a workplace hazard in which they say:

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.

11 posted on 06/14/2002 11:10:01 AM PDT by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
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

12 posted on 06/14/2002 11:57:00 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson