SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor..................thats right water..........you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made......thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006........after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons.......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ........they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs as junk science......... Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

concludes that "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed." What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers.....

meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent " 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.' " And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)

The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

-harleyrider1978

Posted by harleyrider2010 on October 13, 2009 at 9:11 AM Suggest Removal

RE;harleyrider1978

To Smoke is ignorant to your health and to defend cigarette smoking is retarded. If you believe everything you read you're a fool. Check out these web sites.

www.cancer.org

www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS www.epa.gov/smokefree

www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.35422/

and believe what you read.

Posted by SouthernMan on October 13, 2009 at 10:52 AM Suggest Removal

People get to bent out of shape over the silliest things. Harleyrider1978 has a good point, its a joke. This whole NO SMOKING thing is a little over board. It's peoples rights if they want to smoke, and its the business owners rights to allow smoking if they want to. It's their business, if they want to allow smoking, that's their choice. Some people just like to whine and boo-hoo because they have nothing better to do. I say this whole SMOKING ban is ridiculous. And to SouthernMan, who gives you the right to call that man a fool, and say that cigarettes are retarded. IT's none of your business who smokes and who doesnt, if someone wants to smoke let them, i'm sure you don't have someone telling you that you can't watch tv, or drive a car because it's bad for your health

Posted by sporter on October 13, 2009 at 11:05 AM Suggest Removal

If I am sitting next to someone drinking it doesn't effect me. When I sit next to someone smoking it does. It is truly that simple. If you want to smoke fine, but take it outside. My family shouldn't have to breathe in your bad decisions. Watching tv or driving a car doesn't effect everyone else like smoking does.

Posted by strongewoman on October 13, 2009 at 11:26 AM Suggest Removal

Readers and the Gazette should know that "harleyrider" is no ordinary commenter. He's a spammer.

His specialty is hijacking message boards like the Gazette's, manipulating them to function as his own freebie PR outlet.

His boilerplate garbage is smeared over every board in the country (Google him). He's part of this weird cabal of maybe 10 rabid posters who try by sheer force of numbers to make their lies seem true, deluging boards with torrents of misleading sewage.

His "proof"? Screwball websites, tobacco-funded studies and tobacco-promoted "news" stories--like the one from the Murdoch-owned Telegraph. reprinted in the Murdoch-owned FoxNews. Murdoch -- a Philip Morris board member. No normal news outlet touched that "story." And of course, it's been totally discredited.

And all this tobacco-funded PR is posted anonymously; bad-boy harleyrider doesn't DARE stand up to spew this swill out in the open in front of a legislative body, where he might have to account for himself or his misrepresentations.

No I'll take my health advice from normal, open scientists who have names and educations and reputations--and dare to show their faces in public--rather than slimy anonymous Internet spammers like harleyrider.

Worse, once Holocaust Deniers and Birthers, etc. start following hareleyrider's despicable methods, spamming the world in the name of their wingnut "enlightenments," message boards like the Gazette's will become useless.

Posted by gene on October 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM Suggest Removal

Smoking is an individual choice. Does this mean that they will eventually ban alcohol due to the effects it has on an individaul. Many people die each year from alcohol related issues such as liver disease or drunk drivers. It's again a personal choice that is up to the individual. If you don't like my smoke, go outside yourself, what makes you any better than me just because you choose not to smoke. I know plenty of people that abuse alcohol and have never picked up a cigarette in life, are they better than me because they choose to drink to much and not smoke, I think not!! They still choose to get behind the wheel and drive impaired, or do damage to thier own bodies.

Posted by bigsiss on October 13, 2009 at 4:15 PM Suggest Removal

personally i feel it's a persons choice to smoke or not smoke and a business owner should decide to allow or not allow smoking in the establishment. the state, or feds, should not dictate to the owners or people about life choices. as to harleyrider who says if you believe what you read you are retarded but yet, posts links for you to read to prove the point he wants to make. am i retarded if i believe what his links say? or is one retarded only because their views are different? smoking or not smoking, i can choice to smoke or not be somewhere where smoking is allowed, that is my choice to do. as for public "health affects" what about those screaming children in restaurants? why should we be forced to listen to them? getting on one's nerves and raising their blood pressure is a health concern isn't it? yep, now jump all over that statement. however, the point is everyone feels they have a right to object to someone's behavior when it affects their being.

Posted by Tutone on October 13, 2009 at 5:33 PM Suggest Removal

I can't believe that with all the education and PROOF that smoking, and second hand smoke are very harmful to a persons health, there are still those "in denial" that insist that "their rights" are being trampled on. you still have the right to smoke--- just NOT IN AN AREA THAT IS GOING TO ENDANGER OTHERS. I HAVE RIGHTS TOO_-- the right to breathe without gasping!! I can sit next to someone who gets roaring drunk-- and it doesn't make me sick. But if they are smoking, their habit could kill me!

Posted by Latebloomer on October 13, 2009 at 10:10 PM Suggest Removal

Why is it that smokers tend to be uneducated people? I should just give them the counter argument "let me fart in your face, or fart at your table while you are eating" and leave it at that.

You know, 10 years ago, I did an in depth study on how the tobacco industry lied, lied, lied to the judicial department, while testifying to the court. Soon after that, they got hit with a MULTI-BILLION dollar fine.

Appears, they have outsourced their lies to different agencies and PR firms.

Some sources indicate up to 50,000 NON-SMOKING people die every year due to 2nd hand smoke. This does NOT include the hundreds of thousands of children who suffer due to 2nd hand smoke (asthma, ear infections, and SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME)

Lesmes, G. R., & Donofrio, K. H. (1992). Passive smoking: the

medical and economic issues. Am J Med, 93(1A), 38S-

42S.

Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, more than 250 of which are toxic. And more than 50 of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are known or suspected to cause cancer.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023

When secondhand smoke is in the gas phase, it has organic compounds and tracers (e.g. benzene, naphthalene, nicotine) that can cling to room furnishings, and depending upon amount of ventilation, can be detected for 3 days after smoking has stopped, continuing to release chemicals into the air. The implication is that non-smokers trying to avoid secondhand smoke by waiting to occupy the room until after smoking activity has stopped may still be exposed to secondhand smoke constituents.

http://www.health.ri.gov/tobacco/tcep/secondhandsmoke.pdf

For something more recent:

2nd hand smoke results in liver disease

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910142425.htm

NOW, researchers are moving into the realm of 3rd hand smoke issues. People arguing whether 2nd smoke is dangerous or not fit in the same category as the people who think the earth is flat. Behind times!

People really do need to read a wide range of articles, and not just the material coming from the PR firms of the tobacco companies. I have read both sides, and some of the PR firms arguments hold a little bit of water, but..... most of the arguments don`t.

The tobacco PR firms arguments are like telling people to take a heavy coat when traveling to Hawaii because it snows in Hawaii.

Yes, it snows in Hawaii, but very few people go to the top of the mountains in Hawaii.

Posted by DennisInJapan on October 13, 2009 at 8:15 PM Suggest Removal

I don't feel it's fair to state that smokers are "uneducated", how do you know what I am educated on? YOU DON'T!!! And just incase you forgot someone that drinks to much could kill you just as easily as second hand smoke.

Posted by bigsiss on October 15, 2009 at 8:36 AM Suggest Removal

To bigsiss:

uhhmmm... please read the first line in my statement.

"....smokers TEND to be uneducated...*

I rest my case with your statement.

Posted by DennisInJapan on October 15, 2009 at 10:44 PM Suggest Removal

--"I don't feel it's fair to state that smokers are 'uneducated'"

It's well-established that they TEND to be poor, uneducated and psychologically unstable.

See this HealthDay article-- just one of the more recent items:

Smoking Keeps Its Grip on Urban Poor

A full 42 percent of people in Milwaukee's poorest neighborhoods smoke -- more than twice the national U.S. average . . .

Even more troubling is the fact that a large number of these low-income smokers hold beliefs that make them less likely to quit, according to ongoing research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. . . .

"Smoking tends to be a disease of poverty and lack of education. . . . "

That select group includes people with mental health issues, which, according to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), smoke 44 percent of all cigarettes. . . .

http://healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=632024

Posted by gene on October 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM Suggest Removal