aich75013 01:52 PM 02-09-2010
Originally Posted by bazookajoe:
I think everyone would agree that we want to protect our kids from any chemical exposure, but we do that anyway - it's just common sense.
Although I do agree, apparently not everyone has common sense.
I was driving and pulled up to a car at a stop light. I looked over and a young mother was smoking in her car with the windows rolled up. She had her infant in the car seat in the back. I couldn't believe my eyes.
[Reply]
icantbejon 03:15 PM 02-09-2010
Originally Posted by aich75013:
Although I do agree, apparently not everyone has common sense.
I was driving and pulled up to a car at a stop light. I looked over and a young mother was smoking in her car with the windows rolled up. She had her infant in the car seat in the back. I couldn't believe my eyes.
I remember a few years back, my brother and I walked by a car in the parking lot of a restaurant. This was in NY just following the smoking ban. A woman had just put her two children, one toddler and one infant, into the car. Her windows were all up. She lit a cigarette and climbed on in. On her bumper was a sticker reading, "At least I can still smoke in my car!"
I was blown away. Some parents really don't give a damn. I don't smoke around my kid, except a few rare times when I'm outside and my wife brings her out to play. Then I try hard to stay away from her. I also don't smoke in my car, cause I don't enjoy the smell honestly. I'd have to say I agree with the majority on this. We all get that smoking isn't the healthiest living choice...however it's our choice.
[Reply]
akumushi 03:56 PM 02-09-2010
All I'm saying is that if the data can be fudged one way, it can be fudged the other, and I don't see any studies from tobacco lobbied scientists, or anyone else for that matter, that are refuting these findings, and as such I have no good reason to doubt them. Show me contrary findings in another study and I'll start to have doubts. The nitric acid thing is a good point Riddick, so there may be less to worry about than the scare-mongers would have you think. Nevertheless, a post smoke shower and clothes change is a small sacrifice to make for the safety of my children.
[Reply]
TrickNick 07:30 PM 02-09-2010
Originally Posted by BigCat:
With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.
On top of this, unless the study was truly double-blind, then bias will be present. Has this even been peer-reviewed yet?
[Reply]
TheRiddick 09:06 PM 02-09-2010
Originally Posted by BigCat:
With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.
Seems no one here is listening. And like I said above, without some numbers the link is full of hot air and nothing more.
[Reply]
TheRiddick 10:05 PM 02-09-2010
Originally Posted by akumushi:
All I'm saying is that if the data can be fudged one way, it can be fudged the other, and I don't see any studies from tobacco lobbied scientists, or anyone else for that matter, that are refuting these findings, and as such I have no good reason to doubt them. Show me contrary findings in another study and I'll start to have doubts. The nitric acid thing is a good point Riddick, so there may be less to worry about than the scare-mongers would have you think. Nevertheless, a post smoke shower and clothes change is a small sacrifice to make for the safety of my children.
OK, a quick contrary study for you.
Taken directly from the article:
The researchers used cellulose as a model of indoor material, and exposed it to cigarette smoke. They then exposed it to a "high but reasonable" concentration of nitrous acid for three hours. The levels of newly formed TSNAs were 10 times higher after the nitrous acid exposure. The TSNAs also formed quickly, the researchers found.
Then, an explanation of how nitrous acid happens (since it only happens
naturally way up in the sky):
Since most vehicle engines emit some nitrous acid that can infiltrate the passenger compartments, tests were also conducted on surfaces inside the truck of a heavy smoker, including the surface of a stainless steel glove compartment.
To sum up, these "unbiased", "neutral" scientists parked a truck in someone's living room for over 3 hours, then smoked a bunch of cigarettes on top of that. Yep, something all of us do on a daily basis. Also, pay attention to that "heavy smoker" description, that may be key as well.
I am not saying that second hand smoke is not a bad thing, simply that the study would have had way more merit had it not gone into typical "hysteria mode" a number of highly visible "studies" have gone to lately (global warming anyone?). Like I said, show me some numbers. Heavy smoker is what? Pack a day, 2, 3? And what are the chances that same heavy smoker parks his vehicle inside the house (or apt) with the engine running and then decides to smoke a few packs while watching superbowl, 100%, 200%, 1%?
[Reply]
BigFrank 08:44 AM 02-10-2010
Just another crap study funded by anti smoking interest groups. Probably just use this data to pass another round of taxes all for the "children"... Give me a break...
[Reply]
TheRiddick 05:47 PM 02-23-2010
OK, just came across this link:
http://kansas.watchdog.org/2010/02/2...ms-just-smoke/
Key paragraph as it relates to this thread:
The third claim Siegel objects to is called third-hand smoking. Some smoking ban advocates say nicotine left on a person’s clothing and skin is deposited on the surfaces away from the smoking area then create vapor that exposes non-smokers to harm. “I think that’s just a gross exaggeration, and the levels of exposure are so small that it’s not creating any meaningful hazard,”
[Reply]
jaymz 01:41 PM 02-25-2010
ScottishSmoker 01:04 AM 02-26-2010
Didn't the World Health Organization after years of study find that Secondhand smoke has no cancer causing ability?
[Reply]
adampc22 01:50 AM 02-26-2010
u hear about tenth hand smokeing ? its when u could maybe perhaps but probley not get a tan from the cigar store light
[Reply]
