Hmmm. Here's what they actually said:
In five minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke, your body starts closing off arteries. Workers on an eight-hour shift in a smoking environment actually receive more toxins in their system than one-pack-a-day smokers! Heart attack rates fall between 30 percent and 40 percent when comprehensive smoke-free work sites are introduced.
Seems like they are being pretty conservative to state arteries "start closing off."
But instead Mike you accuse them of saying:
Just 5 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can be fatal.
Better re-read the article.
There's a big difference between "starting" a process and completing it. In fact, I do not even see in the articles reference that they indicated what percentage was closed after 5 minutes.
Exaggerating SmokeFree Wisconsin statement doesn't help the discussion.
The EPA, CDC and all 50 states acknowledge that carcinogenic secondhand smoke causes injury and disease to non-smokers.
Thus, Smoke Free Wisconsin are certainly in the right to call for smoke free workplaces.
Perhaps you can assist them in writing about the dangers of second hand smoke that you believe is more credible.
Given that you have written so extensively on the dangers of second hand smoke, you must have some good references.
Erik-
Actually, I think I'm being quite conservative for not taking them to task for the third claim as well - that smoking bans will reduce heart attacks by 30-40%. That's an extremely shaky claim which flies in the face of common sense as well as medical and epidemiologic plausibility. Read my posts about the Helena and Pueblo studies for the details, but suffice it to say that it is completely implausible that a smoking ban could result in a 30-40% decline in heart attacks.
The only claim of theirs which even comes close to being true is the 2nd one - and that happens to be data which comes from ME! But they have mis-stated it so badly that it really is somewhat misleading. I would never have cleared that statement for publication had they asked me for guidance on how to communicate that finding of mine.
As far as arguing that a claim that the body "starts closing off arteries" does not imply that the body starts to "close off arteries," I think we'll have to do a bit better than that if we wish to retain any credibility as a movement.
Moreover, if you actually read the relevant article, the truth is that 0% of the artery closes off after 5 minutes of exposure. In fact, the artery got BIGGER!!! It opened up a little, rather than closed a little. So even by your defense of the statement, it is not true.
As far as arguing that a claim that the body "starts closing off arteries" does not imply that the body starts to "close off arteries,"
No, I said:
There's a big difference between "starting" a process and completing it.
Oh well.
Erik writes: "The EPA, CDC and all 50 states acknowledge that carcinogenic secondhand smoke causes injury and disease to non-smokers."
Hey, Erik, if they "acknowledge" that, then case closed! But why is it that you people seem to be so obtuse when it comes to an understanding and use of the English language? And do you think that lack might carry over into your chains of thought?
Naaaaa ...
Bill, do you intend to make your brethren and sistren at SF Wisconsin aware of their gross overstatement of the facts? Please let us know what they have to say ...
"There's a big difference between "starting" a process and completing it."
The same goes for "closing off" and "opening up". "Starting" implies also "ending" or "completing", but they leave the time span and the extent open to the imagination, for good reasons: "I haven't said it, but, you know, whatever you think, just fill in the blanks ..."
The fact, Erik, is that there is a trend in the ATI to use any argument, (any!) to instill fear to further their cause.
"In fact, I do not even see in the articles reference that they indicated what percentage was closed after 5 minutes."
That is "lying by omission". A lie of omission is a method of deception that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person's capacity to make an informed decision. Lying by omission usually includes setting a stage which will bias the readers perception.
Well who is going to come out with the comment that you are going to suffer a fatal heart attack by seeing the sight of an UNLIT cigarette or by seeing a field of tobbaco growing.Eik you're getting so extreme why don't you run with this scenario.Smoking is becoming so dangerous that you won't even need to burn the stuff to cause fatal diseases ,the mere sight of it will suffice.The new terrorist superweapon-a pack of Marlboro ,a single cigarette will empty the contents of an airport and they won't even have to light up !OH MY GOD .
Si: Here ya go. Coming Soon...
Dr Mike: did you perchance email that to Smokefree WI/Capitol Times? Otherwise I would like to quote some of it to the forums: dailypage.com and madison.com and send along to editors of both papers.
I went to work on Wed. April 12, had a day off and returned to work on Fri. April 14. The last outside ashtray for the entire building had been removed, along with the 25 foot rule being added to the doorway.
Sen. Rissor of WI has a Smokerban proposal that has the entire state Smokerban like the city of Madison-coming close to Callabasas KA- ya know the "buddies" of Ira Sharenow and Mr Godshall style of Smokerban.
That is one reason I had to make sure my new lease includes the caveat: Smoking allowed with this lease thru out this lease(and every year thereafter as we renew).
Anyway, let me know if I can quote you entirely or not to the forums and if you sent your article to editors of those papers.
Do you know Dr Fiore at all from your Tobacco Control participation?
Thanks Dr Mike!
capri
Capri-
I have not communicated this directly to SmokeFree Wisconsin or to any newspapers in the area. You can certainly feel free to quote from this post.
Erik-
The issue isn't whether the secondhand smoke "starts" the process or "completes" it. The issue is that it doesn't "start" the process in the first place. There is no evidence that the aorta gets smaller after a 5 minute exposure. In fact, the relevant article demonstrates that the aorta got BIGGER. If anything, by your logic, SmokeFree Wisconsin should be claiming that secondhand smoke exposure is a good thing because it increases the diameter of the aorta allowing more blood to be pumped to the body.
So Erik - or any of the rest of you "scientists" out there...
How long DOES it take for the arteries to complete the process of closing down? I can see how this information would really come in handy for us "murderous" smokers! Wow!!
I envision an army of "exterminators", each of them armed with nothing more than an easily concealed small tube of tobacco. Disguised as poor wretched afflicted addicts begging help to kick their habit, they could gain entrance into most any nest of nannies and wipe them all out in a matter of minutes!!
Hmmm... Suicide Bombers, so to speak. I mean since all us "idiots" are gonna die horrible deaths anyway, why not take some of THEM with us?
Actually this is invaluable information for all manner of "applications". I wonder if our "shadow government" knows about THIS WMD?
I'll go for a minute. No one should be exposed to tobacco toxins for even a minute if they do not want to be. It a matter of courtesy. A person can use tobacco and damage his own health as much as he wants. Its only when he makes the same decision for everyone around him that that something needs to be examined.
Steve: Think about what you just said. As a "matter of courtesy", you don't want a person to make decisions for "everyone around him".
Suppose your Stetson cologne causes a number of people to wretch and gag. Would you expect some "public health" agency to begin a campaign about the hazards of Secondhand Stetson and ultimately make it illegal for you to wear it in any location where it might cause that reaction in any "sensitive" soul?
Or would you expect us sensitive souls - knowing that your cologne is poison to us - to stay the hell away from you? We're willing to do that you know, just make most public places "Stetson-free" and we'll let you have your own "Stetson-allowed" hangouts. We'll never even mention how you "reek" or try to make you stop wearing cologne.
I used to wear Stetson, man that stuff stinks. Thank God my friends told me. If you want to wear Marlboro cologne, more power to you. But don't say I didn't warn you.
Well Steve, courtesy works two ways. The most discourteous behavior of all is to expect one's way 100% of the time.
I've heard this invalid argument a lot, usually from the sort of person who thinks compromise consists in others capitulating to his will.
When two people cannot compromise, the preferences of the owner of the property should rule, as discourteous as that may be. I suspect people who dislike tobacco smoke would receive a lot more consideration if they did not bully the smoker first.
Workers on an eight-hour shift in a smoking environment actually receive more toxins in their system than one-pack-a-day smokers!
Maybe they should start smoking then :P
Sorry Brett, but when you are making a decision that affects the health of everyone in the room, courtesy only works one way.
"Sorry Brett, but when you are making a decision that affects the health of everyone in the room, courtesy only works one way."
Steve, if it's your room, I agree; if it's not yours, keep out!
Steve, that hyperbole is ridiculous. If you know that, shame on you. If you don't, I don't require your opinion.
"No one should be exposed to tobacco toxins for even a minute if they do not want to be."
How do you apply that to other outdoor pollution such as trafic, industry, bar-b-qs, heating, airports? Should firemen stay away from the smoke of burning houses, police agents stay away from highways, airport personnel go on strike for clean air?
Funny, the only toxin seems to come from SHS.
you neglected to consider that firefighters wear respirators and most people don't run jets and cars indoors with the windows closed.
It a matter of courtesy. A person can use tobacco and damage his own health as much as he wants. Its only when he makes the same decision for everyone around him that that something needs to be examined.
Yes, but some believe they should have a right to fill your breathing space with carcinogenic laden cancer causing toxins and don't want to even step outside for a few minutes to keep the indoor air breathable.
"Sorry Brett, but when you are making a decision that affects the health of everyone in the room, courtesy only works one way."
And this is the typical snippy, petulant, and loathsome little mindset of every "anti" in America. It's what drives you folks to spit, curse at, lecture, and even assault smokers at your pleasure.
Who made you anyone's health protector Steve? There were (as in passed tense) bars in California, for example, where non-smokers comprised perhaps 1% of the clients, and no one copmplained. Many of these bars were venues, to use a polite term, where your average effete anti-smoking hot house flower would have perished of the vapors at the very thought of entering for a cold beer. Nevertheless, it became absolutely vital for people like you Steve to tell these hard-working adults with grease under their fingernails that their smoke might harm some sensitive pansy in Birkenstocks and they couldn't have a smoke anymore with their brew. So now they have parties at home, and invite their friends from the bars that closed down because of your freedom hating crusade, and smoke like the adults they are and where they are still somewhat safe from prissy little busybodies out to make them miserable.
Meanwhile, you have succeeded in putting many, many folks out of business. And I am sure that you don't give a damn, as long as your're happy...that's all that matters.
Frankly I'm surprised that there isn't a bounty on you antis.
"you neglected to consider that firefighters wear respirators and most people don't run jets and cars indoors with the windows closed."
Are you comparing the level of smoke in a bar where smoking is allowed to the level of smoke found in a burning building? Preposterous.
And as far as jets and cars indoors, you're exactly right. Our city's public works facility leaves vehicles idling in their apparatus bay all the time. A motor vehicle puts out hundreds, if not thousands of cigarettes worth of pollution in 5 minutes. WHy can they do this? Because, when it's properly ventilated, it's OK, and you can do things like that.
It's also done with cooking grills, fireplaces, welding equipment, and any number of other pollutant sources that are basically identical in makeup to tobacco smoke.
But I suppose you will say it's possible to ventilate automobile or jet engine exhaust from an indoor area, but not the smoke from a few grams of burning leaves...
benpal wrote:
"Bill, do you intend to make your brethren and sistren at SF Wisconsin aware of their gross overstatement of the facts?"
I didn't accuse SFW's executive director of making inaccurate claims, or of being dishonest, deceptive and/or lying. Mike did that.
If Mike didn't even bother to communicate his concerns with Ms. Busalacchi before posting his accusations, just what evidence are his accusation's based?
On this issue, it appears that Mike may have a bigger credibility problem than SFW or Ms. Busalacchi.
I simply don't know whether Ms. Busalacchi's statement (that Mike criticized) is correct or incorrect, and I would never claim to presume what Ms. Busalacchi may or may not know about this issue.
I do, however, agree with Mike's statement, "Frankly, this is getting a bit ridiculous."
Since there is a smoking ban "they have parties at home."
If you've been to California, LA, San Fran, you'd know that the nightlife there is more vibrant than ever.
I didn't realize that there was widespread use of jet engines inside places open to the general public.
"Yes, but some believe they should have a right to fill your breathing space with carcinogenic laden cancer causing toxins and don't want to even step outside for a few minutes to keep the indoor air breathable."
Your breathing space, Erik? Who asked to go to the same venue I go? Aren't there any smoker-friendly venues?
Why would I go to a bar if all I can do there is to step outside? Why should I pay for the right to have a drink outside ... and expose myself to the toxic fumes of your car?
Does that make sense to you?
"and most people don't run jets and cars indoors with the windows closed."
No, and most smokers prefer well ventilated venues as well. The majority of modern (even some not-so-modern) restaurants and bars installed decent ventilation years and years ago - for everyone's comfort. And most smokers also enjoy having their own "designated smoking area" where they don't need to put up with whining busy-bodies.
There are few of us who go out of our way to "make the decision" that forces you to breathe toxins for even one minute. We long ago learned to compromise and we long ago took great pains to find venues where we would be "allowed" to enjoy a smoke with our drink or with coffee following a meal without annoying anyone else.
You and your cronies here attempt to portray an entire segment of the population as - at the very least - consistently rude and inconsiderate. When in full hyberbolic mode; you compare smokers to rapists, murderers and child molesters. And you often deliberately place yourself in "harms way" just so you can complain about it and spout your self-righteous drivel.
Explain this one: How much sense does it make to require a truck mechanic, working in an open shop where diesel engines are running, to "move 25 feet" from the building if he wants to have a cigarette when he takes his break?
Explain the justification here: A business established from its start up , invested in, maintained and advertised as a "cigar bar" required by the state of Washington to post "This is a Smoke-Free Establishment. No Smoking Allowed." I don't care for the smell of cigar smoke myself and I would probably not have gone inside the place since NO ONE WAS FORCING ME to do that. But do I think the People's Republic of Washington had a right to effectively close it down? Absolutely NOT!!
So, Steven, who is "making decisions" for whom?
"I didn't realize that there was widespread use of jet engines inside places open to the general public."
Worse! Outside and eventually inside.
Restaurants and bars are open to the general public - at their discretion - but nobody is forced to go inside. If you don't like it, go find something else.
If you don't like hooker bars, if you don't like alcohol, if you don't like tobacco, don't enter. What's so difficult about that?
Those venues are not YOUR places, they belong to somebody else. There is no constitional right to have access to a bar.
"If you've been to California, LA, San Fran, you'd know that the nightlife there is more vibrant than ever."
That could well be true. California does have more than its share of granola flakes and nuts.
Correction: in my response to Erik, read:
"Aren't there any non-smoker-friendly venues"
Do you wear earplugs in the bars that have the jet engines?
"If you've been to California, LA, San Fran, you'd know that the nightlife there is more vibrant than ever."
So what? Tells me that there are plenty of places where non-smokers can gather without being annoyed by smokers. Why would you then care about a few places where smokers get together.
I really don't get it. But I guess I will never understand extremism and fanatism.
Annals of Internal Medicine 1998; 128:426-434).
It is my understanding of this article, that the title is misleading. The article should have been titled:
"Favorable effects of passive smoking ...."
Seems to me like exposure to ETS could be life saving.....
Jill Stevens wrote:
"If you've been to California, LA, San Fran, you'd know that the nightlife there is more vibrant than ever."
I guess you didn't read that anthropologists were hired to study why 60 percent of the bars in San Francisco were ignoring the smoking ban. (Anti-tobacco wants to know what's wrong with all these people)
What's interesting though is the "more vibrant than ever" comment. You really expect anyone to believe that you, Erik, and Bill actually compose a segment of people large enough to be called vibrant?
"I didn't realize that there was widespread use of jet engines inside places open to the general public."
What is it with you people and your concern only with indoor air? (Where you could stay out of if you wanted to)
Are you familiar with how much fuel jets burn? You can taste their exhaust from quite a distance.
Ever go for a walk alongside a street and taste and smell the vehicle exhaust?
What happens to the "Only 5, 10, 20, 30 minutes of exposure is harmful" phrase when you're walking next to a street? Do you even think it when driving through that stuff when taking Junior to his soccer practice?
You people are either too funny or too hypocritical.
" and most people don't run jets and cars indoors with the windows closed." -- Steve Johnson
Good point Steve, I wonder why none of your anti-tobacco buddies ever consider this a viable solution for tobacco smoke... OPEN THE WINDOW.
For someone as altruistic as yourself, tell me sir, do you wear an airtight plastic bag tied around your head to prevent harming those around you in public? If you don't believe your own respirations isn't harmful and near immediately fatal, I suggest you try it and then outstay your welcome. Depending on the size of the bag, I bet we can get near 100% fatalities within 10 minutes.
But Steve being typical of the anti-smoking croud, as most sanctimonious which believe their fecal matter doesn't stink, also believe relative harm is an absolute.
Now if we consider a cigar-bar. The likely clientele are all smokers. Why is it that anti-smokers want to dominate this environment also, as they have done with proprieters which desired to cater to smokers.
And it is not limited to indoor areas, take for example Calabasas. Have they banned cars? Don't think so! They settle for a reduction in risk rather that the elimination of all risk. As I stated before, it's the anti-smoking absolutism that is the basis of their argument, and their application is only relevant to tobacco smoke. Talk about stacking a deck!
There is a young graduate student looking for volunteers to help with her anti-smoking project, which is to become part of research being conducted for a graduate thesis.
I believe both smokers and anti-smokers will be fascinated.
Find her letter and contact info HERE
Bill if i understood correctly from an earlier thread,i thought you were going to advise the various bodies (cadavers?) of their erroneous comments,since there would be none of the accusatory elements coming from you .Now ,perhaps i am unable to understand your coded message or you're waffling with even more gusto than ever.If they have made statements that are pretty well unbelievable,then whether you can second guess them or even third guess them is totally irrelevant. Jill how about answering the points that i raised a while ago,before you visit every bar in California.Remember what you were advised about drinking alcohol etc,it can double the amount of people you're seeing in a bar very easily.Shame on you though for not sharing a big cigar with Arnie.
Jill Stevens: "I didn't realize that there was widespread use of jet engines inside places open to the general public."
Granted - jet engine use inside places open to the public is not widespread. But just for the record, I have witnessed the use of a jet engine inside a place not normally open to the general public. Some 15 - 20 years ago, as an engineering student, I visited a power plant. They had a 2 MW emergency generator hooked to a modified aviation jet engine. This arrangement was housed in a small building. The staff at the plant started the emergency generator for the benefit of us students. Starting time was about two minutes to full power. Ear plugs were absolutely a must.
Contrary to the pretentions of smoker pogromists, we had no trouble breathing.
Running a jet engine inside a small building is perfectly possible. 'Ventilation' solves the exhaust fume problem from the jet engine. If 'ventilation' can do this for a jet engine, I see no reason why it could not also be solved for tobacco smoke 'exhaust'.
So much for the "it is impossible to run a jet engine indoors" rubbish. Of course it is possible.
Oh come on. There is no way to keep a room clean with a jet engine running with "ventilation." The jet exhaust never entered the room. It was sent directly outside. If it wasn't you would have been killed. Jet blast is 3000 degrees.
Besides, even if you were in a room that had jet exhaust that doesn't mean that its safe.
"Besides, even if you were in a room that had jet exhaust that doesn't mean that its safe." -- Jill
Neither is being in a room hysterical anti-smoker. Perhaps anti-smoking should be banned since it appears their hysteria has the potential to cause heart attacks in perfectly healthy individuals in 5 minutes or less.
Now explain to me how a car's exhaust is OK in Calabasas, but smoking with the window down in a car is a significant threat to the health of others.
Oh Walt, everything is perfectly easy to explain. Car exhaust and tobacco smoke are both practically harmless in the situations you would normally encounter them. Both are insignificant health threats. We already know that.
Outside, in Calabasas, car exhaust, at levels 1000's of times greater than tobacco smoke are defined as 'acceptable' (for now). Tobacco smoke, at much lower concentration, and equally harmless, is defined as 'unacceptable'.
The non existant threat of tobacco smoke is 'unacceptable' by definition. The 'significance' of the health threat is a production of definition.
You won't get any meaningful explanation out of smoker pogromists, only tailtwisting nonsense.
Jill (et al)... You really DO need to investigate this Research Opportunity.
Now explain to me how a car's exhaust is OK in Calabasas, but smoking with the window down in a car is a significant threat to the health of others.
Walt H: Catalytic Converter
Ok Jill, same old arguement here and same old tired answer.
You can have a car running (With it's catalytic converter), in a closed room, I'll even be generous and make it 5 times larger than the room I invite twenty smokers into, we'll light the ciggarettes at the same time you start the car, last one living wins, simple, hows your trust in your catalytic converter now?
Better yet, for every hour you stand in the open air near the end of a runway, I'll remain in a room with only a window fan and the same twenty smokers, puffing vigorously away, who gets harmed more?
(anti auto answer = the innocent bystander who runs afoul of our vented "toxic" ciggarette smoke, real answer = Anti smoker drops dead from the exhaust and there is much cheering heard from the crowd)
Jerry, I don't know of any restuarants that run cars indoors.
I'm telling you, Jill. Go answer the Research questions!
Jill wrote: "I didn't realize that there was widespread use of jet engines inside places open to the general public."
Try airport terminals Jill. Remember,the Antismokers around here claim that air filtration can only solve the problem of particulates. But take a look at this letter from USA Today about some of the gasses being sucked in as "fresh air" into those nice terminals where passengers are now protected from wisps of tobacco smoke:
=======
Dear Editor,
Feb. 14th's article, "Airport Air Unhealthy..." shows just how silly the Smoking Prohibitionists have become.
The article claims "frequent fliers may be getting a dangerous dose" of secondary tobacco smoke. A “dangerous dose”? In an airport? An airport where hundreds of planes are freely spewing jet fuel fumes into the terminals’ air intakes??
Looking at just two of the emissions that jets and cigarettes have in common shows how ridiculous this is. According to the Surgeon Generals' 1986 Report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, a cigarette puts out a total of 3 mg of nitrogen oxide (NO) and 40 mg of carbon monoxide (CO). The 1995 EPA study on airplane emissions cites a single 747 takeoff/landing at about 115 pounds of NO and 32 pounds of CO: that's 52 million mg of NO and 14 million mg of CO if you do the math.
Doing a bit more math for a typical 500 takeoffs/landings per day shows us that the nice clean smokefree air being pumped into those terminals has the CO equivalent of over 160 million cigarettes and the NO of Eight and a Half BILLION cigarettes.
All of which is being shwooshed right into the lungs of travelers who are supposedly receiving a "dangerous dose" from a few cigarettes being puffed in secluded and sealed off terminal areas and bars. This would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
References: 1986 SG Report pgs. 129, 130, 136 and
EPA Report "Technical Data... Commercial Aviation" 09/29/95
=========
Any response to that Jill?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Jill would like everyone to believe a catalytic converter reduces the amount of toxic fumes from a running automobile to less than that of the second hand smoke from a cigarette being smoked inside of it with the windows down.
This is the perfect example of the exaggerated propaganda
continued from above...
This is the perfect example of the exaggerated propaganda being disseminated by activists trying to create a mass hysteria over second hand smoke.
Jill,
You just keep on telling yourself that people want the smoking ban, and it is succeeding.
Almost half of the bars observed in this recent (2003) study of 121 bars in San Fransisco were NOT in compliance with the smoking ban. Maybe that's why SF's night life is so vibrant - customers are getting what they want, namely, their choice of smoking or non-smoking venues!
"Of the 49.6% of bars in which smoking was observed at least once, 14.9% were characterized by endemic smoking."
Lee, J.P.; Moore, R.S.; and Martin, S.E. "Unobtrusive observations of smoking in urban California bars," Journal of Drug Issues, 33(4):983-999, Fall 2003.
http://www.prev.org/printindivre...c.asp?
refno=568
Further, in a March 6 article from bakersfield.com, entitled "Patrons, bars spurn smoking ban"
"Eight years after Assembly Bill 13 made it a misdemeanor to light up in most of California's night clubs and cocktail lounges, smoke-filled bars are still plenty common in conservative Bakersfield, where the right to bear Marlboros has taken on a distinctively libertarian flavor."
Further, British pub chain J. D. Weatherspoons has decided to halt its plan to ban smoking in all its pubs in Britain, because PROFITS FELL.
http://www.casinotimes.co.uk/cas...king-
070306.htm
From the article:
"Jim Clarke, the finance director, cautioned against reading market trends into the disappointing performance shown by Wetherspoon's 37 smoking bans. "There is no doubt we have lost smokers to pubs next door. That can't happen, of course, under a universal ban."
Further, in Madison, WI, it was determined in a suevey of 700 bartenders that HALF of them smoked. That's over twice the state average. Non-smoking bartenders reported things like sniffles, but no >30 minute heart attacks.
""About half smoke and half don't, and about 15 percent of nonsmokers worked in nonsmoking establishments, so that gave us a chance to compare symptoms," Remington said this morning."
Does SHS harm smokers?
http://www.madison.com/archives/...9/19/
874276.php
"If you've been to California, LA, San Fran, you'd know that the nightlife there is more vibrant than ever. "
Jill, why do I find it so hard to believe that you've ever hung around "nightlife" in LA? or anywhere, in fact. I have no experience in SF but in LA all the hot bars are designed around interior or rear "patios". Very few bars have opened since the ban that lack these good-sized patios or balconies, which remain the most crowded and, oh yeah, "vibrant" parts of these boites.
If your experience of west coast "nightlife" is limited to googiing anti propaganda, expand your search words. The papers out there are loaded with articles that back what I'm saying.
"The jet exhaust never entered the room. It was sent directly outside."
So, Jill, we can successfully ventilate 3000 degree jet exhaust, but not the smoke from a few grams of burning leaves?
Smoke from idling diesel and gasoline motor vehicle engines is routinely ventilated from mechanics shops, such as those at my city'spublic works department, and probably your city's public works department too, but we can't ventilate the smoke from a few grams of burning leaves?
When will you wake up and realize how ridiculous you're sounding?
When will you let go of your hate?
Hey Walt, it's not just the papers that are showing how vibrant the night life in California is.
Here's the number of Type 42 and Type 48 liquor licenses in California, from 1994 to 2004. These two license types represent stand-alone bars. Type 42 is beer and wine, Type 48 is beer, wine and liquor. Establishments that serve food (i.e. restaurants) are categorized differently.
Year Total Bars
1994 5028
1995 5033
1996 4894
1997 4836
Smoking was banned in CA bars in 1998
1998 4692
1999 4558
2000 4463
2001 4384
2002 4345
2003 4297
2004 4275
-13.12%
It's so good for bars to ban smoking, that their numbers have decreased over 13% over the past 10 years!
The ones that are surviving are likely the non-compliant ones.
Just querying the figure of 40mg of CO per cigarette,are we talking a cigarette whose diameter is 1" by around 10" long.No cigarette kicks out that much CO according to the Government supplied data on tar and nicotine in cigarettes.A more appropriate figure is between 10 and 20 mg .So we can now double the quantity of cigarettes required to match the aeroplane stats for CO.
The declining number of bars in California has also coincided with increased enforcement of drunk driving laws, and the reduced maximum blood alcohol level for drivers.
I also suspect that many of the CA bars that closed were nuisance dive bars where lots of illegal activity occurred.
Bill does it again:
"The declining number of bars in California has also coincided with increased enforcement of drunk driving laws, and the reduced maximum blood alcohol level for drivers.
I also suspect that many of the CA bars that closed were nuisance dive bars where lots of illegal activity occurred."
All of the above are the 'causes'. Here's the confounder:
"Smoking ban"
Funny how smoking bans always end up being declared the counfounder to the plethora of causes that manage to close bars, which were supposed to benefit from the smoking bans....
Jill, as to your reply that restaraunts don't run cars inside, Whats that got to do with your claim that the magical catalytic converter manages to make exhaust safe for exposure to humans?
You responded to another question asking how a car can be safe for pedestrian exposure as long as the smokers window is closed by stating that the catalytic converter was what made the car safe, I challenged, and still challenge you to prove it by allowing yourself exposure to a substance(car exhaust) you claim is safe because of the converter as I will expose myself and twenty other volunteers to direct and second hand smoke, still trying to claim that the car is safer than SHS? Here's your chance to prove it Pep pill.
"Oh come on. There is no way to keep a room clean with a jet engine running with "ventilation."
Well Jill, it's apparent that you never worked in the aviation industry. Luckily for you though, I have.
I was an aircraft mechanic for 30 years. During that time I have worked so close to running jet engines in "rooms" that today my hearing is a bit shot.
I started my aviation maintenance career in the US Navy in 1974. I was on two aircraft carriers; the Enterprise and the Ranger. In my squadron I worked as a troubleshooter at the catapult, which meant being close enough to a jet engine just before launch that you actually felt the engines rather than heard them.
After my military service, I worked for Lockheed, Hughes Helicopters (long since gone), and later for Swissair (also gone). Swissair was my last job in aviation.
I have seen jet engines, mainly APU's, run inside hangars for sometimes fifteen minutes and more. An APU is an acronym for an Auxilirary Power Unit. Every commercial jet aircraft is equipped with an APU by law. The APU is required because it can supply emergency pneumatic pressure and electricity to the aircraft in case of main failure in flight. However, we used to joke that an APU's purpose was to convert jet fuel into noise.
But I digress. Many airports have air and electrical hook-ups, so when the plane is in position, waiting for passengers and freight, running the APU isn't necesarry. However, some airports do not have these hook-ups and the pilot, or mechanic, has to run the APU while the plane is on the ground. Again, the APU is a jet engine, and although it produces no usable thrust, it burns Jet A fuel from the same fuel tanks that feed the other engines.
We would run these APU's for maintenance purposes many times in the hangar. Naturally, the hangar doors would be open.
My point here, Jill, is that not only can you run a jet engine in a room (ok, a hangar) and live, it is actually a fairly common maintenance practice in hangars all over the world.
Forgive me, but you should stick to subjects you know something about.
PS, where'd you 3000 degrees from? Your engine melted a long time ago.
What's bitterly funny about your remarks, Eric, is that today (in many states) you can work that same job, surrounded by roaring jet engines, & not be allowed to smoke a cigarette inside the hangar. I guess ventilation is OK for expelling tons of carcinogenic air but when it comes to expelling a few grams it's useless.
The fact that they disregard other pollutants - but become hysteric over tobacco smoke - shows that smoke haters don't really care about what's healthy.
They just hate smoking. They want to either bully you to into quitting, or impose the most onerous restrictions on smoking they can think of as a means of punishment for those that refuse to comply.
Has anyone noticed how the anti jihadists (Jill, Erik) are trying to drive the debate off-topic? The matter of discussion was the absurdity of some claims made by SmokeFree-this-and-that, remember? Probably those zealots have nothing to argue about so they try to spew dissent anyway by tossing in extraneous arguments.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
