LOL!
You're right! I never even thought of it like that!
Okay, here's the anti-smokers bedtime story:
Posted on 01/28/2005 1:50:34 PM PST by SheLion
Just how harmful is environmental tobacco smoke?
Not as harmful as the Environmental Protection Agency or those anti-secondhand smoke commercials would have one believe, according to Roger A. Jenkins, Ph.D., consultant to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Chemical Sciences division.
Jenkins presented "Human Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Is What You See What You Get?" at ORNL this week.
"Some people wish I didn't have the findings I have," Jenkins said. "Others say, 'Gee, if this is true, why does the EPA continue to talk about this?' [The research] steps on people's toes, and that's exactly what I want it to do."
Environmental tobacco smoke is a highly diluted mixture of sidestream (70 to 90 percent) and exhaled mainstream (10 to 30 percent) of tobacco smoke.
"'Secondhand' smoke is probably misleading, since most ETS is derived from smoke which is emitted by the smoldering firecone of a cigarette," Jenkins said.
According to Jenkins, the typical smoker inhales 480 milligrams of smoke a day and 32 milligrams of nicotine per day. In a home where smoking is unrestricted, the typical non-smoker will inhale the equivalent of .45 milligrams of smoke particles and .028 milligrams of nicotine.
There are several science-related hurdles to overcome in educating the public about ETS, Jenkins said. The first is getting the public to understand the difference between personal beliefs and science.
"In a society where there are still serious debates about evolution, this can be a real challenge," he said.
The second is avoiding the "means justifying the end syndrome," which Jenkins says involves the distortion of science in the name of preventing youth from smoking.
The third major hurdle is demanding "public policy types" provide perspective for the facts they declare.
"Sure, there are 43 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) in ETS, but there are also probably about 40 carcinogens in diesel exhaust and wood smoke," Jenkins said.
Indoor air pollution is also caused by many things other than non-tobacco sources, including cleaning, cooking, consumer products like Raid and wood burning.
"As (physician) Paracelsus said in the early 1500's, 'the poison is in the dose,'" Jenkins said. "We still continue to eat lettuce and take showers despite their carcinogens. Life is risky business."
Jenkins is simply remaining true to his profession by bringing forth this politically incorrect information, he says.
"When you start tinkering with science because you want to achieve some political aim, you are no longer a scientist."
Jenkins retired in September from his position as leader of the Environmental Chemistry and Mass Spectrometry Group in the Chemical Sciences Division at ORNL. He has authored or co-authored more than 45 open literature publications in the area of field analytical chemistry and tobacco smoke characterization and human exposure. He is the lead author of "The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measurement," Second Edition.
Jenkins has also acted as an expert witness in several high-profile litigations involving environmental and mainstream tobacco smoke composition and exposure
Yeah. I'm trying to convince our temp to take the plunge. I think I loan him more smokes than I smoke myself in a day.
Perhaps he'll get used to them. Then I'll be up to thirteen.
**rollyourown.com, you oughta thank me**
LOL!
You're right! I never even thought of it like that!
Okay, here's the anti-smokers bedtime story:
LOL!
Good one,TC!
Most excellent, Tex.
How did my post come up blank?????
I said "Most excellent picture" Tex!!!
LOL!
That's been happening to me, too, lately.
Thanks, SL!
Nevermind. It's this 'puter.
Given your admission that you support property owner's rights to chose to allow tobacco use, and the right of an individual to chose to smoke, why do you search out the puff threads to heap ridicule on others?
"As long as smokers keep posting these articles I will continue to pop in an express my opinion that smoking is gross and often obnoxious to non-smokers. If all of you are that sick of my opinion, don't answer my posts."
Well, that answers my question. Of course, you do realize don't you, that you do not represent all non-smokers? I know plenty of non-smokers that have no issue with the smell of tobacco. I know many that even allow it in their homes. I even know some that enjoy it.
No, you do not represent non-smokers, you represent anti-smokers. From now on, make sure you get your terminology correct.
People of low self-esteem must ridicule others to build themselves up, especially, when they can do it from the safety of a keyboard.
There is definitely a difference, just as there is a difference between non-gunners and anti-gunners.
I know a lot of people who don't own guns, but they fully support anyone's right to keep and bear arms.
We have a lot of non-smokers who come to these threads, but they fully support the right of smokers to do so.
I'd merely like you to know that you , Gabz, & She-Lion have the best posting talents I've ever seen on any board. :D Great stuff.
Though I think my posts are not exceptional, I truly appreciate your kind remark.
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.