"I AM AGAINST A SMOKING BAN IN BARS".

WillowIX · 05-13-2003, 08:31 AM

OK Thorfinn a very nice theoretical post that unfortunately holds NO VALUE in real life.

Now ponder one benzene molecule floating around in the air. Ponder that you inhale this molecule and it passes through your lungs into your bloodstream. It has no difficulties passing through your cell membranes so it's inside one of your cells in a whiff.

Now inside the cell the benzene molecule, due to its hydrophobic properties, will be nicely guided to your cell nucleus. And also due to its hydrophobic nature it will most certainly interact with your genome, hey that's why the body has corticoid hormones. Now here's the "good" part of my story. Benzene is very stable so once it has attached to a gene it will have a heck of hard time getting loose. Put the benzene molecule in a very bad place and you have accomplished the first step for developing a cancer.

Numbers do not mean anything when discussing the human body.

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] for your calculations. But ONLY 62 packs? Then I'd say that every bar way exceeds the limit, IF one would disregard ventilation, which often sucks in bars anyway.

Oh and Thorfinn, I think you are confusing me with someone else. I do not favour a smoking ban in bars.

Oh and *ignores LordK* [img]tongue.gif[/img]

LLAO!

[ 05-13-2003, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

05-13-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Donut:

quote:
Originally posted by Thorfinn:

Incidentally, we have already done that with AIDS transmission and rectal intercourse, for instance, so under precautionary principle, we should be justified in banning anal intercourse. But for a change, liberals in America are shying away from applying the principle here...

Anal intercourse is illegal in the UK. Has the US gone to buggery? [/QUOTE]Well actually...yes...or at least certain small segments of the population have. Altho I was under the impression that there is no shortage of that segment in the UK these days as well...better call out the bobbies [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thorfinn · 05-13-2003, 08:43 AM

Why does this have no application to real life? Remember that the PELs are established on the dual premises of linear extrapolation out to zero and that the figure represents a 1-in-1 million chance of increased risk. That single molecule hitting just the right place is already reflected in the PEL. They have already factored in the odds of winning the powerball, and from what we know about toxicology with respect to linear extrapolation, the PEL is probably erring on the side of safety by an order of magnitude, at the very least.

Do smokers up your way regularly go through three packs in one sitting? If so, then, yes, I would say y'all might have a health issue up there in the Great White North. But of all the places I have lived, I have to say I have never met a population who smoked heavier than Chicagoans, and I am pretty sure they are not in the 3 pack per 8 hour category...

(Remember, you have to sit in the smoke for 8 hours, 5 days per week, for 30 years after all the 62 packs are up in smoke, and at least here in the states, fire code requires ventilation at the rate of 6 changes per hour, so at least here, you would have to have all your bar patrons going through 3 packs per person every 10 minutes...)

[EDIT]
Sorry that I got you mixed in with the banning crowd, Willow. I hope you understand how I made my mistake, though...
[/EDIT]

[EDIT2]
I did make a simplification in the air exchange in that I did not factor in residence time, but I don't feel like doing the calc and specifying that all the air in the bar is a homogenous mixture. If anyone feels like so doing, be my guest, but my gut feel is that it probably is going to come down to requiring about 3 packs per person every 18 minutes...
[/EDIT2]

[ 05-13-2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

Cerek the Barbaric · 05-13-2003, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WillowIX:

quote:
Originally posted by Cerek:
In one case, the rights of the individual supercedes the rights of the majority, in the other case it is the exact opposite.

So? Could it be that people actually are worried about their own health?

I sure am, and if a smoker sits next to me I instantly ask him/her to put it out. Respect. A simple word with so much meaning. Unfortunately a lot of people do not know the meaning of the word.[/QUOTE]Respect goes both ways, Willow. If you are in a public place that allows smoking, then the smoker has just as much right to "light up" as you do to ask him/her not to.

If you are worried about your health, don't go into establishments that allow smoking. Then you won't be involuntarily exposed to it.

05-13-2003, 08:50 AM

Umm Willow...Im not sure if you looked closely at what you posted about benzene....but according to your data...it proves that second hand smoke really isnt a danger. You need, in your own words...constant exposre over long periods with the concentration levels found in second hand smoke...sounds liek they are trumping up their case to make it sound like an imminent threat whent he data shows it is not.

LordKathen · 05-13-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WillowIX:

Oh and *ignores LordK*

Nice...

[ 05-13-2003, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

05-13-2003, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
If you are in a public place that allows smoking, then the smoker has just as much right to "light up" as you do to ask him/her not to.

If you are worried about your health, don't go into establishments that allow smoking. Then you won't be involuntarily exposed to it.

Amen Cerek. The fact is..as is shown on this thread over and over..people refuse to allow that smokers have every right to smoke if the establishment allows it. They demand access to the smoking environment and that smokers in the smoking environment bow to their wishes...completely wrong headed and unfair in my book.

People who do not like smoke..should not visit establishments that allow it...it is very simple.

I would also like to point out, that those of you who have lost loved ones due to their own actions concerning cigarrettes, you have my sympathies but for at least 30 years now every one has known that smoking is bad for you...if you choose to smoke..its your own fault. Same for drinkers and druggies...you choose your own poisons...mine is polyunsaturates..yours is nicotene or THC no one is forcing us with guns pointed at our heads...well not in the US..maybe in some other country.

LordKathen · 05-13-2003, 08:59 AM

I second that amen! And now its time for bed... [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

Thorfinn · 05-13-2003, 09:02 AM

Bed, LordK? Isn't it, like 6am in Washington state now?

Anti-smokers, I'm not saying that there is no danger from passive smoke. I'm just saying that benzene is not a very good hand. If it's the best you got, you better fold...

[EDIT]
And, of course, as MagiK and others have been stressing all along, even if it is dangerous, you are all capable of thinking for yourself and staying out of the smoky bars, opening up your own, non-smoking bar as the whim strikes you. I guarantee you that only a very small fraction of smokers will refuse to abide by your wishes to keep your place smoke free, and that fraction will likely be very drunk at that point...

You are all big boys and girls. If you don't like smoke, stay away from businesses that cater to smokers.
[/EDIT]

[ 05-13-2003, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

WillowIX · 05-13-2003, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:
Umm Willow...Im not sure if you looked closely at what you posted about benzene....but according to your data...it proves that second hand smoke really isnt a danger. You need, in your own words...constant exposre over long periods with the concentration levels found in second hand smoke...sounds liek they are trumping up their case to make it sound like an imminent threat whent he data shows it is not.

No MagiK that's where you are wrong.

It DOES NOT take long term exposure.

All it takes is one molecule in the wrong place. Now perhaps you can begin to grasp my deep disgust of governmental research.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek:
If you are worried about your health, don't go into establishments that allow smoking. Then you won't be involuntarily exposed to it. And vice versa but I notice that that haven´t been addressed once.

If you are in a public place that allows smoking, then the smoker has just as much right to "light up" as you do to ask him/her not to.
Where have I stated otherwise? Perhaps I need to do some shouting since people in here apparently don't get that
"I AM AGAINST A SMOKING BAN IN BARS".
However I still believe that smoking is one of the most stupid things to do. Ok I'll stop my shouting now.

[ 05-13-2003, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

05-13-2003, 08:59 AM	#78
LordKathen Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: September 15, 2002 Location: Kennewick, WA Age: 52 Posts: 3,166	I second that amen! And now its time for bed... [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Timber Loftis your PM box is full!	Xen	General Discussion	0	03-14-2005 01:29 PM
Timber Loftis	Yorick	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	1	08-25-2004 07:27 PM
Timber Loftis in a Chicago courtroom	antryg	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	41	11-14-2002 06:58 PM

05-13-2003, 08:31 AM	#71
WillowIX Apophis Join Date: July 10, 2001 Location: By a big blue lake, Canada Age: 50 Posts: 4,628	OK Thorfinn a very nice theoretical post that unfortunately holds NO VALUE in real life. Now ponder one benzene molecule floating around in the air. Ponder that you inhale this molecule and it passes through your lungs into your bloodstream. It has no difficulties passing through your cell membranes so it's inside one of your cells in a whiff. Now inside the cell the benzene molecule, due to its hydrophobic properties, will be nicely guided to your cell nucleus. And also due to its hydrophobic nature it will most certainly interact with your genome, hey that's why the body has corticoid hormones. Now here's the "good" part of my story. Benzene is very stable so once it has attached to a gene it will have a heck of hard time getting loose. Put the benzene molecule in a very bad place and you have accomplished the first step for developing a cancer. Numbers do not mean anything when discussing the human body. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] for your calculations. But ONLY 62 packs? Then I'd say that every bar way exceeds the limit, IF one would disregard ventilation, which often sucks in bars anyway. Oh and Thorfinn, I think you are confusing me with someone else. I do not favour a smoking ban in bars. Oh and ignores LordK [img]tongue.gif[/img] LLAO! [ 05-13-2003, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

05-13-2003, 08:43 AM	#73
Thorfinn Zhentarim Guard Join Date: February 24, 2003 Location: Indiana Age: 61 Posts: 358	Why does this have no application to real life? Remember that the PELs are established on the dual premises of linear extrapolation out to zero and that the figure represents a 1-in-1 million chance of increased risk. That single molecule hitting just the right place is already reflected in the PEL. They have already factored in the odds of winning the powerball, and from what we know about toxicology with respect to linear extrapolation, the PEL is probably erring on the side of safety by an order of magnitude, at the very least. Do smokers up your way regularly go through three packs in one sitting? If so, then, yes, I would say y'all might have a health issue up there in the Great White North. But of all the places I have lived, I have to say I have never met a population who smoked heavier than Chicagoans, and I am pretty sure they are not in the 3 pack per 8 hour category... (Remember, you have to sit in the smoke for 8 hours, 5 days per week, for 30 years after all the 62 packs are up in smoke, and at least here in the states, fire code requires ventilation at the rate of 6 changes per hour, so at least here, you would have to have all your bar patrons going through 3 packs per person every 10 minutes...) [EDIT] Sorry that I got you mixed in with the banning crowd, Willow. I hope you understand how I made my mistake, though... [/EDIT] [EDIT2] I did make a simplification in the air exchange in that I did not factor in residence time, but I don't feel like doing the calc and specifying that all the air in the bar is a homogenous mixture. If anyone feels like so doing, be my guest, but my gut feel is that it probably is going to come down to requiring about 3 packs per person every 18 minutes... [/EDIT2] [ 05-13-2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

05-13-2003, 08:50 AM	#75
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Umm Willow...Im not sure if you looked closely at what you posted about benzene....but according to your data...it proves that second hand smoke really isnt a danger. You need, in your own words...constant exposre over long periods with the concentration levels found in second hand smoke...sounds liek they are trumping up their case to make it sound like an imminent threat whent he data shows it is not.

05-13-2003, 09:02 AM	#79
Thorfinn Zhentarim Guard Join Date: February 24, 2003 Location: Indiana Age: 61 Posts: 358	Bed, LordK? Isn't it, like 6am in Washington state now? Anti-smokers, I'm not saying that there is no danger from passive smoke. I'm just saying that benzene is not a very good hand. If it's the best you got, you better fold... [EDIT] And, of course, as MagiK and others have been stressing all along, even if it is dangerous, you are all capable of thinking for yourself and staying out of the smoky bars, opening up your own, non-smoking bar as the whim strikes you. I guarantee you that only a very small fraction of smokers will refuse to abide by your wishes to keep your place smoke free, and that fraction will likely be very drunk at that point... You are all big boys and girls. If you don't like smoke, stay away from businesses that cater to smokers. [/EDIT] [ 05-13-2003, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)