Posted on 05/02/2015 2:27:29 AM PDT by harleyrider1978
OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud
Reference Manual Scientificn Evidence Third Edition
These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.
So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''
OSHA SAFE LEVELS
All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.
Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.
So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''
OSHA SAFE LEVELS
All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.
Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
Yeah, smoking is good for you.
I have begun to suspect the anti-tobacco effort goes back to the FDR days. It was the global warming of the day. Tobacco farmers of the ‘30s were probably independent, fiercely conservative small businessmen. They had to be bulldozed. Hence tobacco subsidies, allotments, then “science”, and finally shunning. It worked, too.
The smoking brigade on FR can never answer one question: Is it safe to sit in a room full fireplace smoke?
No, it means your chimney isn’t clear and your home is about to burn down.
Skiing is a nasty habit. Keep doing it if you want. Dying from emphasyma and lung cancer is a crappy way to go.
Your lungs are not designed to inhale that stuff.
Smoking. Not skiing. Skiing is fun.
Tell that to Sonny Bono.
Smoking is bad for the smoker, not the non-smoker.
Considering that it takes a lifetime (albeit a shorter one) for smokers to get a smoking related illness, to claim that non smokers are “harmed” by the trivial amounts they get exposed to is patently absurd. Keep in mind the smoker is in all that second hand smoke too.
Ping, baby, ping!
The same way your fingers are "not designed" for computer keyboards, your hands for steering wheel etc.
No one is in a position to make pronouncements on what the chief programmer of the universe had in mind, or what it is that he is trying to do. In practice, whatever works, goes.
Regarding the alleged harmfulness of tobacco smoke, like most people you have been duped by the mercenary pseudo-science, bought and promoted largely by the pharmaceutical industry, which is also the chief creator and sponsor of the "grass roots" antismoking groups, buyer of antismoking laws and regulations, etc.
While the pharma uses FDA, CDC, politicians & bureaucrats to muscle out many medicinal plants and natural remedies, their most fierce and persistent attacks are aimed at the best one of them all, the ancient medicinal plant tobacco used by billions of humans for the last 8000 years.
There was a long thread "Smoking is good for you" on, of all places, the leading life extension and nootropic forum "Longecity". After months of debate, countless papers and references brought up and discussed, there was no contest -- the antismoking side, which was nearly everyone there initially, had nothing but junk science on their side (correlations on non-randomized samples), while all the hard science (experiments, randomized trials) was on my side (I post as "nightlight" there). The "debate" was so one sided that some of these health and longevity obsessed folks started smoking as result of the facts presented.
Here are few links to the highlights of that "Smoking is good for you" thread.
1. Dogs exposed to radon or radon+smoke:
5% of smoking dogs and 37% of non-smoking dogs got lung cancers.
2. Massive National Cancer Institute sponsored experiments that
backfired terribly, setting back the NCI's workplace
smoking bans agenda for more than a decade.
3. The crowning experiments (2004, 2005) of six decades of
antismoking "science", the pinnacle -- again backfired badly,
as they always do -- at the end, more than twice as many smoking
animals alive than non-smoking ones.
4. Self-medication with tobacco
5. Common genes for lung cancer & smoking
(Fisher suspected this to be the case in 1950s, he also suggested
self-medication possibility, see page 163, where he compares taking
cigarettes away from some poor chap to taking the walking stick
from a blind man.)
http://www.york.ac.u...tat/smoking.htm
http://www.york.ac.u...t/fisher274.pdf
6. Hazards of quitting (triggers lung cancers in animal experiments)
7. Emphysema/COPD - smoking protective rather than cause
8. How does antismoking "science" lie with stats (how to "prove"
that -- Prozac causes depression -- using the master method
of antismoking "science")
9. Heart attacks from SHS myths (a 'friend saying Boo' is more
"hazardous" for your heart than SHS)
10. Glycotoxins/AGE in tobacco smoke -- backfires badly
11. Smoking protects against cancers (reversal of values in cancer state
and another common sleight of hand), Smoking vs Caloric Restrictions
(and on fundamental wrong-headedness of CR)
12. More on anti-carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke and how to translate
Orwellian antismoking "science" to real science
13. ** why take a chance
14. Smoking and diabetes, insulin sensitivity -- another "proof" backfires
15. How to prove that 'Lifting weights is harmful for muscles' -
pinhole vision sleight of hand of antismoking "science" illustrated
16. Oxidative stress, breast cancer, "randomizing non-randomized variables" sleight of hand --
more antismoking junk science claims turned upside-down by facts of hard science
17. Can one replicate the health benefits of tobacco smoke (the short list given) using supplements and pharmaceuticals?
Even if it were possible, can one do it for < $1 day
(cost for a pack of roll-your-own cigarettes with natural,
additive free tobacco)?
18. Who knows more about biochemistry of life and its molecular engineering -- one little cell in your little toe or all the
biochemists and molecular biologists in the world taken together? Is "Sickness Industry" good for your health?
Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.
1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).
1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.
1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.
1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”
1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.
1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.
If any of that hogwash you said was even close to true,theyd never live even in their own homes.
Every so called chemical in tobacco smoke is also in the natural air everyone breathes everyday. In fact on average your daily smoking chemical dose from the natural air equals about 14-15 packs a day..........You cannot escape the chemicals or the doses they are to small to even matter.
Perhaps you would rather just outlaw yourselves and all the other human carcinogen machines from even existing! Or the New Building VOC’s that release constantly in new buildings that also can create a cancer risk. He should also want to ban Cooking,Campfires, Industrial output, Barbecuing,Breathing,having indoor plants that release constant Isoprene! You see no matter the contempt and daily scares these folks toss out you will never escape natural elements and chemicals such as whats in tobacco smoke or the normal everyday air we all breathe and exhale. We are all sources of the same thing these prohibitionists are trying to outlaw and criminalize!
NIH report on carcinogens
If you want to learn about which chemicals cause cancer, or just want to feel more paranoid about getting cancer, check out the 2012 NIH report on carcinogens.
One of the more exciting findings is that human beings themselves are possible carcinogens, by virtue of their natural emissions of isoprene:
Isoprene is formed endogenously in humans at a rate of 0.15 µmol/kg
of body weight per hour, equivalent to approximately 2 to 4 mg/kg per
day (Taalman 1996), and is the major hydrocarbon in human breath
(accounting for up to 70% of exhaled hydrocarbons)
Don’t breathe on me!
Natural occurrences[edit]
Isoprene is produced and emitted by many species of trees into the atmosphere (major producers are oaks, poplars, eucalyptus, and some legumes). The yearly production of isoprene emissions by vegetation is around 600 million tonnes, with half that coming from tropical broadleaf trees and the remainder coming from shrubs.[1] This is about equivalent to methane emission into the atmosphere and accounts for ~1/3 of all hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere.
discussion of ‘smokers’ black lungs’ started in the comments today. It’s the widespread belief that smokers’ lungs turn black. Rose pointed out that it all started with James I about four centuries ago. She also dug up some refutations:
“Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.”
Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.”
Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.”
And Brigitte even found a Youtube video:
There is even this (in German) in which a forensic medic states that these “tar” lungs do not exist.
Rich White’s Smoke Screens reports the same:
This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951 – 1984. In a television interview in the 1980’s he stated that, translated from Dutch, “I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers”.
Smokers’ lungs used in half of transplants
Almost half of lung transplant patients were given the lungs taken from heavy smokers, with one in five coming from donors who had smoked at least one packet of cigarettes a day for 20 or more years
Despite this, new research shows that those people given the lungs of smokers were just as likely to be alive up to three years after transplantation as those who had organs from non-smokers. In some cases, they had improved survival rates.
“Donor lungs from even heavy smokers may provide a valuable avenue for increasing donor organ availability,” says André Simon, director of heart and lung transplantation and consultant cardiac surgeon at Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust.
“Our findings provide for the first time real world figures for the perceived risk of implantation of lungs from donors with even a heavy smoking history, and they show that such donor lungs may provide a much-needed lease on life to the critically ill patient whose chances of survival diminish with every day or week that passes by on the waiting list.
“I believe that candidates significantly decrease their chances of survival if they choose to decline organs from smokers.”
Lung transplantation is a life-saving therapy for patients with end-stage lung disease, but a shortage of organ donors means people are dying while waiting. UK Transplant Registry data show that only 20 per cent get transplants within six months. The figure rises to 51 per cent after three years, but by that time nearly one in three patients has died waiting for a transplant.
Transplant patients who are given smokers’ lungs (right) are just as likely to survive as those who receive organs from non-smokers (left), a study has revealed. Some patients even had higher survival rates’’http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550424/Smokers-lungs-just-likely-transplant-patients-alive-non-smokers-organs.html#ixzz3DmLHYLj9
I take it that a /sarc tag is implied.
Actually, the issue here is not smoking. The issue is "second-hand" smoke as it affects non-smokers. The article is right. As far as poisoning of the non-smoker in a room full of smokers, the issue is nonexistent. Except, that is, for humans affected with asthma and allergic reaction to the smoke.
What is justifiably complaint-worthy and objectionable is having to work in rooms smelling of stale smoke, having to put up with meetings that smell bad and almost causes one's eyes to water, and having to go home with stale smoke odors in your hair (esp. for women) and in your clothes that need to be hung out side to air or be washed for further use.
Smoking is simply a filthy habit and an inconsiderate irritation forced on others that needs to be banned in closed public areas, just for its social unacceptability.
(Speaking as a full-time tobacco user from 9/54 to 11/90, freed from that for the last 24+ years. Also sympathetic to those that really enjoy a full-bodied prime Cuban cigar after a fine meal, if you can get one. As Rudyard Kipling mused in his poem "The Betrothed,": ". . . a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke" -- my italic emphasis. Regarding theistic immolation of the tobacco leaf by the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, we hear from Wikipedia that "He enjoyed his cigars and smoked a 'F. P Del Rio y Ca.' in his last days according to his grandson.")
There you have it.
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.