|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
u cannot own me wrote: <quoted text> Do you know that if the smokers window is cracked, the smoke is pulled out of that crack to the outside? But, that can be the only window cracked for it to work. I would assume it is something that we smokers know and do. Keeps the smoke out of the car :-) This is more true at higher speeds. It is the air pressure differential. At higher speeds, having all the windows all the way down plays havoc on the air flow.(Which is what apparently scares "killer plants". He must have had an incident with hot ash getting blown off of his cigarette under those conditions.) The Rees study was not conducted at what I would call high speeds. The Ott study examined several speeds, as well as several window and vent settings. Remember the old cars with the vent wing windows? (I know you do.) ;-)
|
|
“PALIN FOR PRESIDENT”
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
|
Non-Cas Fan wrote: <quoted text>
This is more true at higher speeds. It is the air pressure differential.
At higher speeds, having all the windows all the way down plays havoc on the air flow.(Which is what apparently scares "killer plants". He must have had an incident with hot ash getting blown off of his cigarette under those conditions.)
The Rees study was not conducted at what I would call high speeds.
The Ott study examined several speeds, as well as several window and vent settings.
Remember the old cars with the vent wing windows?
(I know you do.) ;-) Yes, with its own handle to roll them out LOL
|
|
“PALIN FOR PRESIDENT”
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
|
Non-Cas Fan wrote: <quoted text>
This is more true at higher speeds. It is the air pressure differential.
At higher speeds, having all the windows all the way down plays havoc on the air flow.(Which is what apparently scares "killer plants". He must have had an incident with hot ash getting blown off of his cigarette under those conditions.)
The Rees study was not conducted at what I would call high speeds.
The Ott study examined several speeds, as well as several window and vent settings.
Remember the old cars with the vent wing windows?
(I know you do.) ;-) Hey NCF, gotta go get a haircut, don't want to look like old shep at my oldest grandsons wedding tomorrow. So, have a wonderful vacation , relax and enjoy it. Last year the little one went incognito. Be safe!!
|
|
Killer Plants
|
Oh you must have missed my last post ill put it for you again Non Cas Fan. Ok Non Cas Fan you do have a point that if i just post that one little part and not the rest you can have some right to scream red herring and straw man. So to stop that case I am going to post your entire post. Took me awhile to find it. But I did. Read below to see if that post is all there. Below this line you start your post. ---------- A two-part reply. The first part follows. Killer Plants wrote: Responding to Non-Cas Fan Ok I did post this case study. It says it all. It is simple and easy to understand. It takes place in an enclosed area. The results are not whay you want to hear. According to the study, a 30-minute exposure to the level of secondhand smoke that one might normally inhale in an average bar setting was enough to result in blood vessel injury in young and otherwise healthy lifelong nonsmokers. Compounding the injury to the blood vessels themselves, the exposure to smoke impedes the function of the body's natural repair mechanisms that are activated in the face of the blood vessels' injury, the researchers reported. Many of these effects persisted 24 hours later. http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/health_librar ... There is alot more please read it. Case closed. Tobacco is bad for children to inhale in a car.<excerpted> You might have missed my previous reply to your initial posting of this information. http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TNJ ... Again, this study measured tobacco smoke levels that were at least 8 times greater than the mean amount measured in a car with the windows down in the Rees study that you linked to earlier. Additionally, the duration of 30 minutes exposed is also 6 times longer than the exposure endured, according to the Rees study. The more recent Ott study gives insight into the air change rate within the vehicle, and demonstrates that if the driver's window is down even about 3" and the vent fan is ON, the exposure in the vehicle still does not equate to the bar exposure in that other study. For the sake of simplicity, though, just consider the information from the Rees study. http://www.ajpm-online.net/webfiles/images/jo ... Please examine Figure 1. The white column represents the windows open condition. Smoking occurred for approximately 5 minutes, and measurements were taken at one minute intervals for the duration of the smoking, and also for the immediate five minutes after the smoking stopped. Please notice that the white column indicates a mean level of 51ug/m3 in the smoking phase, but take a close look at the five minutes AFTER the smoking stopped. The white column returned to its baseline level. (You may be tempted to be distracted by the "peak" of 104. That peak is still far less than the amounts measured in the average bar setting, and was dissipated within minutes.) So, you cannot validly point to the 30-minute, heavy smoke exposure and say "ah-HA! Case closed!" because the two don't compare. You want to establish a "case closed" scenario, it will have to be a real-time study on real children, measuring the real effects of the exposure. ---------- Above this line was the end of your post. I think we can agree now I have posted your entire post and not just part of it. Now I would like you to comment yourself on what you wrote on that very last paragraph. I dont see any harm in pointing out to you what your last paragraph was in that post. I will put it below this line ---------- You want to establish a "case closed" scenario, it will have to be a real-time study on real children, measuring the real effects of the exposure. ---------- Above this line is that last paragraph. Could you please respond to what you meant by this. Notice I am asking you to tell us what you mean by it. I would like clarification. I think that is a fair question.
|
|
Joined: May 24, 2008
|
I have been in a car with a smoker who has cracked the window, and the smoke goes through the back and right into my face. It does not help one bit, more the smoker than anyone else.
I have recently reported a smoker, the bitch (and she was on the military base) threw her cigarette out the window. With the high fire season upon us, it is my duty to do so. As a person who has family in the logging business, it is my duty again.
|
|
Joined: May 24, 2008
|
Non-Cas Fan wrote: <quoted text>
You only have me for a few more hours today, then I will be away for a week.
I am making a point of it, so that you don't go thinking that you've run me off with your meanness and foul mouth, or "killer plants" with his logical fallacies.
So, take your best shots (they've all missed so far, so I've got no worries from the likes of you two), but I will be back to handle whatever mess you've left for me. Because I know you won't be able to help yourselves but to post about me while I'm gone. Wow you flatter yourself too much. LOL! I guess no one else will, so have at 'er. Got to go to the detox huh????? LOL!
|
|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
Killer Plants wrote: Ok Non Cas Fan you do have a point that if i just post that one little part and not the rest you can have some right to scream red herring and straw man. So to stop that case I am going to post your entire post. Took me awhile to find it. But I did. Read below to see if that post is all there. Below this line you start your post. ---------- A two-part reply. The first part follows. *Killer Plants wrote: *Responding to Non-Cas Fan *Ok I did post this case study. It says it all. *It is simple and easy to understand. It takes *place in an enclosed area. The results are not *whay you want to hear. *According to the study, a 30-minute exposure to *the level of secondhand smoke that one might *normally inhale in an average bar setting was *enough to result in blood vessel injury in young *and otherwise healthy lifelong nonsmokers.*Compounding the injury to the blood vessels *themselves, the exposure to smoke impedes the *function of the body's natural repair mechanisms *that are activated in the face of the blood *vessels' injury, the researchers reported. Many *of these effects persisted 24 hours later. * http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/health_librar ... *There is alot more please read it. Case closed.*Tobacco is bad for children to inhale in a *car.<excerpted> Again, this study measured tobacco smoke levels that were at least 8 times greater than the mean amount measured in a car with the windows down in the Rees study that you linked to earlier. Additionally, the duration of 30 minutes exposed is also 6 times longer than the exposure endured, according to the Rees study.<excerpted> For the sake of simplicity, though, just consider the information from the Rees study. Please examine Figure 1. The white column represents the windows open condition. Smoking occurred for approximately 5 minutes, and measurements were taken at one minute intervals for the duration of the smoking, and also for the immediate five minutes after the smoking stopped. Please notice that the white column indicates a mean level of 51ug/m3 in the smoking phase, but take a close look at the five minutes AFTER the smoking stopped. The white column returned to its baseline level. <excerpted> So, you cannot validly point to the 30-minute, heavy smoke exposure and say "ah-HA! Case closed!" because the two don't compare. You want to establish a "case closed" scenario, it will have to be a real-time study on real children, measuring the real effects of the exposure. ---------- Above this line was the end of your post. I think we can agree now I have posted your entire post and not just part of it. Now I would like you to comment yourself on what you wrote on that very last paragraph. Could you please respond to what you meant by this. Notice I am asking you to tell us what you mean by it. I would like clarification. I think that is a fair question. Yes, thank you.(I had posted the link to the post in question a few posts back, so I don't know why it took you so long to locate this. Or don't you read the links I give?) My reply follows this. Too many characters, still.
|
|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
To clarify my statement, you also need to reference your post, as noted above.
You were trying to claim "case closed" by using a study of adults in a bar who were more heavily exposed than what would be had in the Rees study, so it is NOT "case closed".
The only way to achieve a "case closed" on the effects of children exposed in a vehicle is to get some children that are already exposed in this manner and measure the effects on them. They are not exposed for greater than 5 minutes in a windows-open scenario, according to the Rees study. That is VERY short-term, for one thing.
Besides, I think it would be a stronger message to the smoking parents for them to see, with their own eyes, the measured effects that their smoking may have on their very own children. Why would you think that children of nonsmokers would need to be involved?
But that message to those parents is contingent on verifying whether there even *is* any measurable harm. Based on the studies I've read, a windows-down setting, especially with the vent on (not set to recirculate) is sufficient to reduce exposures.
If it turns out that there is only "harm" when the windows are closed, that needs to be the message. If there is "harm" under ALL window settings, then that needs to be the message, and it would be "case closed".
But you don't get to "case closed" by studying a situation that doesn't exist; you need to study the actual situation to get to that "case closed" point.
|
|
|
|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
Harley-Honey wrote: <excerpted>
I have recently reported a smoker, the bitch (and she was on the military base) threw her cigarette out the window. With the high fire season upon us, it is my duty to do so. As a person who has family in the logging business, it is my duty again. Smokers who toss their butts are breaking the law.
|
|
Joined: May 24, 2008
|
The topic is about kids strapped in car seats that cant really have a choice about that person smoking in the front seat. Some here for some reason think it is ok to expose children to Tobacco smoke. This one person Non Cas Fan thinks there should be a long term study using real children in real time.
But the two faced fool will not supply his own kids. Coward!!!!!!! But is okay with using others, what an asshole. Those poor kids he claims to have.
I see a new thread on parenting NCF, maybe you better check it out. I haven't yet, no need, but you need a course on ethics on child raising.
|
|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
Harley-Honey wrote: <quoted text>
Wow you flatter yourself too much. LOL! I guess no one else will, so have at 'er.
Got to go to the detox huh????? LOL! No, visiting the in-laws for a week.
|
|
Joined: May 24, 2008
|
Here it is NCF, you are so found of these things, you really must give it a try..... sunshine Calgary, Canada Reply » |Report Abuse |Judge it!|#1 1 hr ago Anyone looking for a parenting website? There's a great one at www.mommyspage.com . It's a small community always looking and accepting new people into the group. If you're a parent and interested in parenting forms or a place to hang out (because it's more than just parenting) check out mommyspage.com
|
|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
Killer Plants wrote: U Cannot On Me You should post this study. I did find a prett good one here that is pretty good. Its from science daily and not sponsored by a Tobacco company. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/... I dont think there is an agenda other then public safety. Is pretty clear we need to protect small children from dangers that even their own parents are willing to subject them to. Many other countries are quite backward, compared to the US and Canada. Did you see the chart and table that I posted for you earlier? Smoke exposure of children in the USA has been rapidly decreasing. Those links were from the stuff on that CDC link you posted. Again, I would reiterate that the "danger" claim is more emotion than substance at this point in time.
|
|
Joined: May 24, 2008
|
here tiz wrote a very impressive post.
We have a lot more work to do to improve the health of this nation, these smoking bans are only a very small step in the right direction. Although it took these smoking bans to open my eyes, I have found a more productive means to improve this country’s working environment. We are in the process of applying these same concepts to other industries through a consulting service. Many industries can ship work over seas where coming into work will put the employees into a safer environment then they would be in otherwise.
I believe, if we work together, we can solve all these problems. What we give up will mean nothing compared to what we accomplish.
Good one. I agree one step always equals more. And these are steps in the right direction. Like it or not. Canada is way ahead in wanting a healthier country of people. Good Health is worth sacrifice. And sacrificing for children should be just a given. My kids come first, so whatever I can, I will do for their safety, well being, and health.
|
|
Joined: May 24, 2008
|
I have my own space for when I smoke my pot. Always have.
|
|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
Harley-Honey wrote: The topic is about kids strapped in car seats that cant really have a choice about that person smoking in the front seat. Some here for some reason think it is ok to expose children to Tobacco smoke. This one person Non Cas Fan thinks there should be a long term study using real children in real time.
But the two faced fool will not supply his own kids. Coward!!!!!!! But is okay with using others, what an asshole. Those poor kids he claims to have.
I see a new thread on parenting NCF, maybe you better check it out. I haven't yet, no need, but you need a course on ethics on child raising. And now YOU bring a straw man into the mix. Lovely. Keep my kids out of it, thank you.
|
|
Joined: May 24, 2008
|
Harley-Honey wrote: Here it is NCF, you are so found of these things, you really must give it a try..... sunshine Calgary, Canada Reply » |Report Abuse |Judge it!|#1 1 hr ago Anyone looking for a parenting website? There's a great one at www.mommyspage.com . It's a small community always looking and accepting new people into the group. If you're a parent and interested in parenting forms or a place to hang out (because it's more than just parenting) check out mommyspage.com OOps fond. Would not want to confuse you as adlibbing is not your strong point NCF.
|
|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
Harley-Honey wrote: Here it is NCF, you are so found of these things, you really must give it a try..... sunshine Calgary, Canada Reply » |Report Abuse |Judge it!|#1 1 hr ago Anyone looking for a parenting website? There's a great one at www.mommyspage.com . It's a small community always looking and accepting new people into the group. If you're a parent and interested in parenting forms or a place to hang out (because it's more than just parenting) check out mommyspage.com LOL You have your moments, I'll give you that.
|
|
Joined: May 24, 2008
|
You are this 'straw man' (that is such a simpleton term), and like the straw man you need to get a brain. Pick one up when you are on vacation. And remember when they said they are handing out brains they are not saying trains, so don't wait for the next one.
|
|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
Harley-Honey wrote: <quoted text>
OOps fond. Would not want to confuse you as adlibbing is not your strong point NCF. If your poor spelling was a hindrance to my reading of your posts, we'd still be on page 3. But that would make you a page three girl.
|
Judge it!
Aries
Most Popular