http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/nyregion/22cigar.html

Evidently there have been nanny-state proponents who have intentionally infiltrated the Big Smoke to try and show how terrible cigar smoking is.

If you even see this guy's face at a smoking event, kick him out.
Image


Unbelievable,
Mike
[Reply]

Thats a horrible article. What was the point of the experiment? What were the conclusions?

Anyone over 10 years old could conclude that "particulates" would be higher inside the ballroom.

I think his experiment backfired since it showed that particulates were well within the EPA's acceptable levels outside the ballroom and throughout the hotel.
[Reply]

Conclusion: The "big smoke" was smokey.


I can haz master degree plz? Kthxbai.
[Reply]

:-) fuukin stupid people...how about I go and eat a liver sandwich...then after spitting it out I'll say...Liver sucks because I didn't like liver in the first place.. :-)
[Reply]

This was back from 2007 but at the bottom they "amended" the article with the higher particulate count that was over the EPA guideline ... that's the great thing about data you can make it what ever you want it to be as long as no one's checking your work :-)
[Reply]

It was over the epa guideline the first time as well... 11xx is way more than 251, then they amended it to 19xx. Doesnt make much sense really..
[Reply]

This just in! Smoky air is smoky! Alert the internets!
[Reply]

:-)




BTW - that picture is SCREAMING photochop. Just sayin'.:-)
[Reply]

There "people" need to get lives! If you don't wanna be there- just don't go! Maybe they're all mentally unstable- masochits. I don't like ballet- I'm not gonna go and complain about it!
[Reply]

I agree 100%.

The funny thing is all of their claims revolve around thing. They believe that second hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. In fact there has never been a SCIENTIFIC study to prove that it does. There have been scientific studies that tried to prove it, but none were successful.


Compare the junk "science" of our own Surgeon General. Read how second hand smoke exposure is "calculated".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901158_pf.html

"Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.

In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory.
"



To the actual scientific study done by the WHO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901158_pf.html

"The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." "


It's hard to argue with a real scientific study.
[Reply]

People find smoke offensive and will try to manipulate science to reach their own conclusion. Such BS.

My dad was talking about this same phony science (in terms of passive smoke) 25 years ago. This is nothing new. It's a witch hunt against tobacco. Certainly smoking is probably not good for you, but what the hell is these days?
[Reply]

To your point...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507528/posts

Despite the claim of anti-smoking groups that scientific studies unanimously have shown that secondhand smoke is killing thousands from lung cancer, the truth is that the vast majority of such studies failed to find any statistically significant link.

The arguments of anti-smokers are sometimes ludicrous. They claim that smoke contains 4,000 poisons and carcinogens, but a 2005 California EPA analysis found only 405. Not only that, the average American diet contains about 10,000 poisons and carcinogens. Perhaps Chicago should ban food instead of tobacco.
[Reply]

:-):-):-)

And they spent HOW much money to figure that out??

:-)
[Reply]

Bacon. :-)
[Reply]

and Stoli:-)
[Reply]

mmmmmmmmm...bacon
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

He kind of looks like a young Walter Peck, Ghostbusters style. :-) What a tool.
[Reply]

Ryan David Kennedy, a graduate student from Ontario, covertly assessed the air at the Big Smoke, a trade show and cigar party.
[Reply]

I hate studies like these. Never really give in scientific data. Only tell you there were more particulates in the air then deemed "safe". It is like the new studies about "3rd hand smoke". Which would be smoke on your clothes that you go home with and expose others. Lot of BS
[Reply]