Toxins lead to healthier lives?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, January 3, 2003 | John Pike

[ConservativeMan55]

I completely understand your problem.

I went out to eat with someone last night.

I ordered the Tuna sandwhich. They then told me that it was best "not to eat that" because there is a risk that the Tuna might be bad.

And this wasn't at some 2 bit restuarant either!

[SheLion]

It seems we're not the only ones who have been saying the same thing for quite some time!!!

Oh yes! They sure know how to spin it. They don't want to tell the truth for fear of losing their jobs and/or funding. Just like the Anti-Tobacco Coalitions.

You got it, Gabz!

What a total waste of tax payers money!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

If the Packers lose, I'll drink a bottle of Clorox.

[SheLion]

You SMOKE DDT? Wtf?!

OH MY GAWD HE SMOKES!  THROW HIM INTO A HOLDING CELL!

My goodness!  It IS legal you know. heh!

[Trickyguy]

"Small doses stimulate, moderate doses poison, large doses kill." That observation is hundreds of years old.

[Mears]

As a 71 year old smoker I tend to agree. Kids are sicker now than 30-40 years ago when many of their parents smoked.

I've heard it called "lazy lung" in that the lungs never breathe anything even slightly toxic and therefore can't fight off lung disease.

[Mears]

As a 71 year old smoker I tend to agree. Kids are sicker now than 30-40 years ago when many of their parents smoked.

I've heard it called "lazy lung" in that the lungs never breathe anything even slightly toxic and therefore can't fight off lung disease.

[Mears]

Sorry for the duplicate post----new computer with very sensitive keys.

[dalereed]

I consider all the "toxics" and other bad things that I consume and breath to be immune system stimulants that not only enhance the imune system but keep it on ready allert!

[Happy2BMe]

Well, did it work?

[Dr.Deth]

I tend to agree with your assessment. Most of the younger people I meet get ghastly allergic to anything and everything under the sun. A consequence of too much protection from things in the world when kids are young, I postulate.

Larger issue here is, of course: women. (Dons flame-retardant material). Ever since they got uppity with this women's lib crap (not to mention getting the vote), they do what women do: worry and fret and try to keep their kids safe from anything and everything. I mean, it's a natural instinct, there is no faulting that. The fault is the excesses this has been carried to through overempowerment. Oh, and certain geldings like Ralph Nader.

Kids are gonna get sick, skin their knees, break an arm climbing a tree, run through poison oak. That's what they do. That's what they HAVE to do, and aren't being allowed to do by a combination of government regulation, state education, and a de-balled society in general.

There's a whole Taoist discussion that could be brought in here, but basically, it can be summed as: we've lost our natural balance. If it's not regained one way, nature has a way of correcting us in another.

[Mears]

I agree with everything you said,we can't hover over kids and expect them to grow into healthy human beings.

Kids need to explore and experiment,fight with eachother,and yes,get hurt,or how are they going to get along in the larger world.

I live in a city with neighborhood elementary schools so that kids can walk,but that's not done anymore. The mothers are there with the SUVs waiting every day,and the kids never walk to or from school.

Kids need to roll in the dirt more,forget these scheduled "play dates",and learn to get along without adult supervision.

[VermiciousKnid]

My sis-in-law is the type who not only doesn't allow smoking in her house, but also loads her kids up on a pharmacy's worth of medicines, won't have a pet, and (I'm not joking) literally wipes her kitchen and bathroom down with BLEACH every time she uses it.

Guess what?

Her kids (and she) are sick ALL THE TIME. They have spent the entire winter fighting coughs, colds, flus, and other assorted viruses. But they CAN'T fight them (especially the kids), because she hasn't allowed their little immune systems to GROW. The instant the children get even the teeniest bit dirty (like when playing with MY kids, for example), she rushes them off to the anti-bacterial soap factory that is her bathroom.

She is shocked (SHOCKED, I tell you!) to find that I do not own one single bar of the nasty orange stuff (Ivory for us, thanks).

Now, while my house isn't dirty, I confess to not being the "I've got to dust, vacuum and sterilize this place every day" type. Having a sterile house is fine if you never plan to go OUT, but unless you are a hermit, you will go out and get exposed to all kinds of nasty little bugs. With no natural immune system upon which to rely, you may as well be wearing a great big bulls-eye for the germs on your back.

As far as I'm concerned, the best way to keep everybody healthy is to OPEN THE DOORS or CRACK THE WINDOWS to let fresh air in.

Sis-in-law insists on an hermetically-sealed house. It's clean, but it smells like a dentist's office...

Regards,

[SheLion]

As a 71 year old smoker I tend to agree. Kids are sicker now than 30-40 years ago when many of their parents smoked.

I was brought up in the 50's and 60's. ALL THE ADULTS SMOKED! I worked in a nightclub, where everyone smoked. Other jobs I had.........everyone smoked. Going out to nightclubs at night with friends, drinking and smoking and NO smoke eaters!

I could go on and on but you already know what I am going to say.............there was NO ASTHMA back in those days. NONE. And kids weren't so sickly either.

The anti's today would have everyone believe that asthma and all the ill health of kids are blamed on smoking. But I don't think there are many today that smoke around their kids, do you? The Health Department has embedded guilt in responsible adults so deep that they don't DARE smoke around their kids.

I'm sick of this War on the Smokers and I sure am sick of TRUTH and all the Partnership for a Tobacco Free Coalition across the U.S. (I need a cigarette to calm down...........)

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Mears]

I'm with you,let's light up and think about it.

The vet that I use for my dog even has a sign on the wall saying that smoking is bad for pets.Try to explain that to my 12 year old Sheltie who was preceded by another Sheltie who lasted 15 years.(Of course they were both non- smokers so the antis would say that's why they lived so long)

I've said it before,we are living in a world gone mad with junk science.

[SheLion]

Sources of Indoor Air Contaminants

Source: OSHA  http://www.osha-slc.gov/FedReg_osha_data/FED19940405.html
A wide variety of substances are emitted by building construction materials and interior furnishings, appliances, office equipment, and supplies, human activities, and biological agents.

For example, formaldehyde is emitted from various wood products, including particle board, plywood, pressed-wood, paneling, some carpeting and backing, some furniture and dyed materials, urea-formaldehyde insulating foam, some cleaners and deodorizers, and from press textiles. Volatile organic compounds, including alkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, esters, alcohols, aldehydes, and ketones are emitted from solvents and cleaning compounds, paints, glues, caulks, and resins, spray propellants, fabric softeners and deodorizers, unvented combustion sources, dry-cleaning fluids, arts and crafts, some fabrics and furnishings,
stored gasoline, cooking, building and roofing materials, waxes and polishing compounds, pens and markers, binders and plasticizers. Pesticides also contain a variety of toxic organic compounds.

Building materials are point sources of emissions that include a variety of VOCs (Table
III-1).

Some of these materials have been linked to indoor air quality problems. The probability of a source emitting contaminants is related to the age of the material. The newer the material, the higher the potential for emitting contaminants. These materials include adhesives, carpeting, caulks, glazing compounds, and paints [Ex. 4-33]. These materials, as well as
furnishings can act as a sponge or sink in which VOCs are absorbed and then re-emitted later.

Appliances, office equipment, and supplies can emit VOCs and also particulates [Ex.
4-33]. Table III-2 lists the many contaminants that can be emitted from these point sources.
There is an indirect relationship between the age of the point source and the potential rate of
contaminant emission [Ex. 4-33].

It goes on to list all the "evils" in our home.

[SheLion]

Here is the link. I forgot to add the other link.

Sources of Indoor Air Contaminants

[Mears]

That's unbelievable.

And many of these toxins are in buildings where you can't even open a window and have to breathe re-circulated air all day.

THe antis never look at those facts,though,it might dilute their agenda.

[SheLion]

The vet that I use for my dog even has a sign on the wall saying that smoking is bad for pets.Try to explain that to my 12 year old Sheltie who was preceded by another Sheltie who lasted 15 years.(Of course they were both non- smokers so the antis would say that's why they lived so long)

Oh yes! The Coalition of PAID Anti's have gotten to the medical society, that's for sure.

I always have pets in my home. Mostly cats. But they ALL live well past 14 years old. And they are indoor cats. In the summer, I might take them in the yard on a leash, but not that much. They are completely indoor pets. None of them wheeze and cough and have watery eyes, not ever.

What does THAT tell you?

And before Ralph died recently, there was always at least two smokers in this house. My daughter smokes, and SHE smoked in this house before she got married. So, that was THREE smokers in this house. Never bothered our beloved pets one bit.

Just another saga for the War On The Smokers.