Sure it was. Steeping in particulates whether dad was there or not, sleeping in bedding soaked in chemicals... damn straight third hand contaminants played a part.
'Third-hand smoke' awareness may curb home smoking
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Sure it was. Steeping in particulates whether dad was there or not, sleeping in bedding soaked in chemicals... damn straight third hand contaminants played a part.
Okay, I just use smileys when I feel like smiling, sarcasm or no- as an advocator of non- smokers rights, to be frank I think this "third hand" malarkey is a bunch of garbage contrived by someone with more emotions than brains. :lol:
Industrial output and exhaust fumes from cars is bad. Don't forget to ban that too. Not limit, ban. 
JLM, people are way off track here, and that's why I responded with some sarcasm. There's lots of health risks we know of that aren't banned substances. This is just news of an empirical finding of risk. Take it for what it's worth. Sheesh.
I can see a way out of the recession with this. You know, if we banned smoking, the chewing tobacco industry would experience a boom period. And think of all the spinoff jobs created with cigarette companies having to hire new marketing teams to make smokers aware of the 'between-the-gums' alternative. Think of the spitune industry. Few would have spitunes, so unless they chose to convert their ashtrays to spitunes, they'd all have to go out and buy some.
Now of course we'd need a tax on that to cover the rise in mouth cancers and more cleaning of city streets.
The good thing about chew is that not only does it not emit third-hand smoke, it doesn't even emit second-hand smoke, or even first for that matter.
What do you think of this brilliant idea. Beat that. But just watch your step when granny starts spittin'.
Now of course we'd need a tax on that to cover the rise in mouth cancers and more cleaning of city streets.
The good thing about chew is that not only does it not emit third-hand smoke, it doesn't even emit second-hand smoke, or even first for that matter.
What do you think of this brilliant idea. Beat that. But just watch your step when granny starts spittin'.
I think they probably have more. For one thing you would die if you tried to smoke one.
Mattresses and health
Industrial output and exhaust fumes from cars is bad. Don't forget to ban that too. Not limit, ban.
7 times worse actually and wood smoke is 5 times worse.
Better ban incense.
Canada - the nation of good little robots.
Industrial output and exhaust fumes from cars is bad. Don't forget to ban that too. Not limit, ban.
When they can assure me that exhaust fumes and industrial output gases are "healthy" for you, I'll jump right on the "ban smoking bandwagon." Till then.... anybody got a light
ps. I still don't like the smell of the gallon of perfume that grandma wears as it wafts through the house:idea:
Yep.
Anybody see the CBC News item on this????
Basically it went like this:
smoke contains harmful chemicals.....these things get into clothes and other items, and they must therefore harm anybody that gets near them, especially the children.
No evidence of any harm done. Not that that matters. Just pure, unadulterated conjecture, framed in such a way that it sounds quite serious. one had to read between the lines.....
What I read was:
The lunatic fanatics of the anti-smoking, I-want-into-every-aspect-of-your-life faction are moving to get the Great Mother Nanny No-Risk State to ban us smoking in our own homes. Wow.
Every time I go to the hospital to visit my Mom, I pass the Smokers Corral, the fenced off area in which patients and others must confine themselves to indulge their habit. It is out in the open......and one guy I see there regularly is on an sort of driveable electric stretcher, obviously paralyzed, a young guy, wrapped in a sheet, out in wind, snow, freezing rain, whatever, I mean what do some of these poor SOBs have other than the pleasure of a good smoke? But the phuking PC Nazis can't HAVE it, God forbid we practise some tolerance, we as a society have gone NUTS!!!!!!
That's my rant.
BTW, I'm a non-smoker. Reformed smoker.
Anybody see the CBC News item on this????
Basically it went like this:
smoke contains harmful chemicals.....these things get into clothes and other items, and they must therefore harm anybody that gets near them, especially the children.
No evidence of any harm done. Not that that matters. Just pure, unadulterated conjecture, framed in such a way that it sounds quite serious. one had to read between the lines.....
What I read was:
The lunatic fanatics of the anti-smoking, I-want-into-every-aspect-of-your-life faction are moving to get the Great Mother Nanny No-Risk State to ban us smoking in our own homes. Wow.
Every time I go to the hospital to visit my Mom, I pass the Smokers Corral, the fenced off area in which patients and others must confine themselves to indulge their habit. It is out in the open......and one guy I see there regularly is on an sort of driveable electric stretcher, obviously paralyzed, a young guy, wrapped in a sheet, out in wind, snow, freezing rain, whatever, I mean what do some of these poor SOBs have other than the pleasure of a good smoke? But the phuking PC Nazis can't HAVE it, God forbid we practise some tolerance, we as a society have gone NUTS!!!!!!
That's my rant.
BTW, I'm a non-smoker. Reformed smoker.
So I guess your symptoms didn't disappear after dad quit smoking in the house as you said; do you still hate him that much?
What, you don't wash your bedding and shampoo your carpets/furniture? Who said anything about hating?
You'd probably die if you tried to smoke a 36 pound cigarette too.
And you can purchase coated nylon pack cloths which seal the chemicals in the mattress. Or you can buy a non-toxic mattress. There's plenty of companies that will ship it to your home.
You can't buy non-toxic Players, Du Maurier, Export A, Marlboro, Camel, etc. smoking tobacco.
Yeah I believe I seen that and it was laid out exactly as you said..... the made a big report for 10-15 mins over what "Could" be and went over all the "Could Be's" long enough and implied as much as they could for people to think they're "Fact."
Next thing you know they're going to tell us that some packs of smokes have a smell of rasin bran and the chemical smell of them makes people poop too much because of the bran smell..... or that it's some hidden mental message to lure children into smoking.... or something else just as foolish.
Here's an interesting wrinkle. I'm listening (OK...half listening) to talk radio this morning,
and some Harvard Medical Professor is talking about "third hand smoke" with lots of
maybe's and could be'sand might's and erroring on the side of caution's....
Something that was brought up was an increased tax based on your address and whether
or not you own a privately registered vehicle, and your proximity to public transport...to
error on the side of caution to protect the environment and prevent health problems...hmm.
and some Harvard Medical Professor is talking about "third hand smoke" with lots of
maybe's and could be'sand might's and erroring on the side of caution's....
Something that was brought up was an increased tax based on your address and whether
or not you own a privately registered vehicle, and your proximity to public transport...to
error on the side of caution to protect the environment and prevent health problems...hmm.
As far as I'm concerned in regards to those so-called professionals who claim to study this stuff:
Unless you have more then just "Could Be's, Should Be's, Might Be's, What If's, Possibly's" ~ Keep yer mouths shut and keep doing your jobs until they're "For Sure's" and can be explained in clear english.
You're not being paid to fill our heads with assumptions, you're paid to figure things out, and if you can't figure something out completely, then STFU and get back to work until you do!!
*Shakes Fist* :angry3:
Hell, I could sit around all day, pull assumptions out of my ass and get paid for it too..... but it sure seems like a waste of money and time if you ask me. (Not all that scientific either)
rofl
I think Prax is the one who should have a daily rant thread, not Karrie.
The whole reason why science goes snooping about something or other is based on assumption or observation. It keeps plugging away at an anomaly until it is figured out. Periodically it will let loose an opinion that it appears as if such-and-such is true.think Prax suffers from a decided lack of understanding of science. He probably skipped those school classes in favor of popping those little pills that boost anti-social behavior in the school washrooms. lmao
Concerning the OP: awareness might cause behavioral change? Noooooooooooo. Gotta be kidding. lmao
*Edited to inclide Prax's fave color and a comment about the OP*
I think Prax is the one who should have a daily rant thread, not Karrie.
The whole reason why science goes snooping about something or other is based on assumption or observation. It keeps plugging away at an anomaly until it is figured out. Periodically it will let loose an opinion that it appears as if such-and-such is true.think Prax suffers from a decided lack of understanding of science. He probably skipped those school classes in favor of popping those little pills that boost anti-social behavior in the school washrooms. lmao
Concerning the OP: awareness might cause behavioral change? Noooooooooooo. Gotta be kidding. lmao
*Edited to inclide Prax's fave color and a comment about the OP*
Last edited:
You have that right, wise people realize that a lot of hypotheses have to be processed before you get to the facts.
Well thank you for the special attention, however I am quite aware of the scientific process.
Science normally goes about looking into something based on assumptions and observations..... this is a given.
But what's the point in running to all the media outlets to talk about your assumptions before you come to any conclusion, other to influence public opinion on something without "Scientific" evidence or proof?
^ Bwaaaaaa...... ah-ha....... see, there's the ticket right there.
It's one thing to tell everybody that you are about to start a study on something you have a theory or assumption on.... it's a totally different thing when you have those same people doing PR interviews with all the major news agencies over something you have yet to prove, and talk about all the "Could-Be's" as if they're fact..... all the while claiming to do this in order to obtain some objective, which in this case is to scare people into not smoking in their homes, or smoke period.
Based on what?
Assumptions. These people who are going on about 3rd Hand Smoke are attempting to influence public opinion and perhaps change our laws even futher without any proof or evidence to back up their claims.... which is the problem I have in this situation and isn't the first time I have seen this happen.
That's the problem and you can joke and laugh about it all you want, but you know exactly where I am getting at with this and what I mean..... which is that if you want to be called a scientist and sound like you know what you're talking about, provide actual evidence and logical explinations to back up your final conclusions..... don't go on about your assumptions, because if all you got are assumptions, then you're no better then anybody else with their assumptions.