Printable View
Can someone point me to the research that substantiates this claim? I've been looking, and all I found was "research shows". I'm not dismissing the claim, I just find it odd.Quote:
City health officials say that people seated within three feet of a smoker are exposed to roughly the same levels of secondhand smoke, regardless of whether they are indoors or outdoors.
Then why so passionate about smoking? This topic gets you more fired up then pretty much anything else discussed here.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No but if they had shot strangers in the dark who were thieves that would have been cool. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperorNorton
Disrespect for property rights is my beef with thieves. You'll find me as opposed to increases in taxes as I am in favor of harsh punishments for thieves.
this mentions a bunch of sources, conclusion on page 2Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
http://www.repace.com/pdf/OTS_FACT_SHEET.pdf
Let's just repeal all anti-smoking laws, but at the same time repeal all regulation of the industry altogether. In fact, let's encourage them to use even more toxic chemicals in cigarettes and pipe tobacco so the smokers kick-off all the faster.
Not quite was I was looking for. I was looking for the claim: 3 feet away from a smoker delivers roughly the same second hand smoke indoors and outdoors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Conclusions from the pdf
1. In an outdoor cafe surrounded by smokers, one is always downwind to a smoker.
2.They also show that under some conditions, outdoor levels of tobacco smoke etc etc
Also in there:
Thanks anyway, this was closer than anything I could find.Quote:
SHS concentrations persist for hours after smoking ceases indoors, while OTS
concentrations dissipate rapidly after smoking stops outdoors. However, during
smoking, OTS levels outdoors may be as high as SHS indoors.
That's a great idea which will surely have no effect on passive smokers at all. /facepalmQuote:
Originally Posted by rumrunner
Hmm, I just saw that post about the actor exemption. This is what I'm talking about: the police can pick and choose who they fine.
"Are you practicing for a theatrical production by smoking?"
"Yes, sir."
Now the police officer has two choices. If he "believes" the smoker, he can leave him alone... or he can ticket the guy. Leaving the law to the hands of the police is classic police state...
Judge Dredd ftw.
aga, your imagination...I'm almost jealousQuote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
The actor exemption is a carry over from the smoking ban in bars. Some bars have even set themselves up as an improv spot, with bar attendees signing in as actors, to get around the ban.
You simple don't get an actor, on the job, smoking on the beach, without some sort of support staff or documentation.
Don't be silly, this just reflects the unnecessary hedging from the papers. "Under some conditions" is because they don't dare generalise (due to idiots who'll make stupid complaints--you didn't measure it during a rainstorm!!--regardless of whether or not they generalise). The "may" is due to the variable conditions you get outdoors, it doesn't reflect a LOW LIKELIHOOD. Rapid dissipation and reduction of concentration with distance is still a problem when you have lots of people smoking, and esp. if you happen to be in the wrong place in relation to a smoker (ie. if the assclown places himself in the wrong position relative to you :mad: ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
The levels of exposure you get indoors are high. If the exposure is even half as high outdoors as it is indoors it's still pretty high.
Ok, I'll take your advice and I won't respond to the rest of your post before I figure out whether you are trolling or lack reading comprehension. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So you're questioning my comprehension after your ridiculous irrational and biased nitpicking above? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
What you did in that post is what Creationists do when they attack the "theory" of evolution.
No, I'm not questioning it anymore. I'm certain of the lack of it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I question a general claim and ask for a source to back it up which tells me that the claim only is true under certain circumstances. I'm satisfied with that conclusion. I never judged the claim, I just asked out of interest.
But you are free to prove me wrong and point out where I am dissing the making of the claim or where I claimed that outdoor levels of second hand smoking cannot be an issue. Go ahead. This can be a little tricky for you, because it means actually reading my posts. Hey, first time for everything, right? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
It seems reading comprehension isn't your only weakness. This is wrong on two levels.Quote:
What you did in that post is what Creationists do when they attack the "theory" of evolution.
1. You flew off the handle for shit I never did.
2. Even if I did the shit you accuse me off, it's still not the same. One is making a reverse general claim making the same error as the original claim (you called it a nitpick, which is actually also false. You go girl!), the other is a missunderstanding of the word "theory" when talking about scientific theories.
Even you as a smoker hating non-smoker would have to raise an eyebrow at the claim that second hand smoke levels indoor and outdoor are the same. And you did. You did when you said: "The levels of exposure you get indoors are high. If the exposure is even half as high outdoors as it is indoors it's still pretty high"
So Minx. Please. With cherries on top and all. Fuck off why don't you :)
well I'm sorry I interpreted your insidious and cleverly bolded post as implying that there's a huge gap between the original claim and the reference keen produced in support of that claim based on the assumption that you were still the way you always have been in these discussions.i suppose everyone can change :o
No worries mate :):up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Nice try :downcast:
So that source specifically says that its a "low-risk" factor but because it affects more people its cumulative. Seems to match what was said already, thanks for backing us up Being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
So now you agree with me? We'd save a multitude more lives banning auto exhaust than second hand smoke. Bulley for you. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No I don't, the source in fact specifically didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Did you even read your own article?Quote:
While passive smoking was not included in this study, Nawrot said the effects of second-hand smoke were likely to be similar to that of outdoor air pollution, and noted previous research which found that bans on smoking in public places have significantly reduced heart attack rates.
So you're still in favor of protecting a few people than many people? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Would you rather stop 10 people getting murdered or 100 people jay-walking?
Um, we're talking about the difference of saving ten people versus saving thousands. :eek: And we weren't talking about murder at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No we're not, the article specifically says the opposite of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I was making a comparison since you did.Quote:
And we weren't talking about murder at all.
You can't read. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade