Tauranga City Council is considering a policy to stop smoking in public places.

Nov 25, 2011 Full story: Bay of Plenty Times 46

Lighting up on Mount Maunganui Main Beach and any other beaches and parks in Tauranga could be a thing of the past if a proposal to make outdoor areas smoke-free is introduced.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
WhatTheNz

New Zealand

#1 Nov 26, 2011
say good buy to a majority of tourists with their tourists money if so
i love frank sinatra

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#2 Nov 26, 2011
'good buy'? You're high. Goodbye.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#3 Nov 26, 2011
f they truly expect shame to have any effect on smokers/smoking, I suspect they are in for a rude awakening.
confederate1989

Campbellsville, KY

#4 Nov 27, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
f they truly expect shame to have any effect on smokers/smoking, I suspect they are in for a rude awakening.
Hugh arse we actually agree on that!
WhatTheNz

New Zealand

#5 Dec 4, 2011
i love frank sinatra wrote:
'good buy'? You're high. Goodbye.
sorry!!!!! GOODBYE

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6 Dec 4, 2011
Tauranga is beautiful, it will be hard to stop people from smoking, maybe allocate certain areas for smokers. Second hand smoking causes cancer and smoking publically not only affects an individual but also those around him/her, especially innocent children.
Applause to the council for atleast thinking about this.
ItsAFact

New Market, MD

#7 Dec 5, 2011
Kiara1942 wrote:
Tauranga is beautiful, it will be hard to stop people from smoking, maybe allocate certain areas for smokers. Second hand smoking causes cancer and smoking publically not only affects an individual but also those around him/her, especially innocent children.
Applause to the council for atleast thinking about this.
"Second hand smoking causes cancer" Prove it lately? Why of course you have not and neither has anyone else.

The only thing second hand smoke is proven to do is wad the panties of panzies.
confederate1989

Oakland, KY

#9 Dec 5, 2011
Kiara1942 wrote:
Tauranga is beautiful, it will be hard to stop people from smoking, maybe allocate certain areas for smokers. Second hand smoking causes cancer and smoking publically not only affects an individual but also those around him/her, especially innocent children.
Applause to the council for atleast thinking about this.
Lung Cancer a Different Disease in Smokers and Nonsmokers

PHILADELPHIA — Lung cancer that develops in smokers is not the same disease as lung cancer that develops in people who've never touched a cigarette, a new study finds.

There are nearly twice as many DNA changes in the tumors of people who have never smoked than in the tumors of people who smoke, which suggests the cancer of "never-smokers" is different from smokers' cancer, said Kelsie Thu, a Ph.D. candidate at the BC Cancer Research Center in Canada.

"We think this finding provides evidence that never-smoker and smoker lung cancers are different, and suggests they arise through different molecular pathways," Thu told MyHealthNewsDaily. "Never-smokers might be exposed to a carcinogen, not from cigarettes, that causes their tumors to have more DNA alterations and promotes lung cancer development."

http://www.livescience.com/11090-lung-cancer-...
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#10 Dec 5, 2011
confederate1989 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lung Cancer a Different Disease in Smokers and Nonsmokers
PHILADELPHIA — Lung cancer that develops in smokers is not the same disease as lung cancer that develops in people who've never touched a cigarette, a new study finds....
Get that one stuck on your "clipboard" and have to scrape it off on every thread active?

Despite the spin given it, what this study actually means is that there is a way to determine whether a given lung-cancer case is caused by SMOKING--since smokers' cancers are distinctive. Who'd have thought that YOU would be drawing attention to something like that?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#11 Dec 5, 2011
confederate1989 wrote:
"We think this finding provides evidence that never-smoker and smoker lung cancers are different, and suggests they arise through different molecular pathways," Thu told MyHealthNewsDaily. "Never-smokers might be exposed to a carcinogen, not from cigarettes, that causes their tumors to have more DNA alterations and promotes lung cancer development."
"'Never-smokers MIGHT be exposed to a carcinogen, not from cigarettes..."

Yes, it seems the results of this study do SUGGEST that this MIGHT be the case. Or, perhaps the differences in concentration of various chemicals between mainstream and sidestream smoke due to different temperatures and different levels of available oxygen during combustion as well as filtration) result in a higher number of carcinogens from cigarettes becoming active in never-smokers whose lung cancers are caused by SHS exposure.[Some of the carcinogens from cigarettes are 10-50 times as concentrated in sidestream as in mainstream smoke.] That could explain the "different molecular pathways". Or--most likely--the truth is a combination of these factors.
confederate1989

Columbia, KY

#12 Dec 5, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
"'Never-smokers MIGHT be exposed to a carcinogen, not from cigarettes..."
Yes, it seems the results of this study do SUGGEST that this MIGHT be the case. Or, perhaps the differences in concentration of various chemicals between mainstream and sidestream smoke due to different temperatures and different levels of available oxygen during combustion as well as filtration) result in a higher number of carcinogens from cigarettes becoming active in never-smokers whose lung cancers are caused by SHS exposure.[Some of the carcinogens from cigarettes are .] That could explain the "different molecular pathways". Or--most likely--the truth is a combination of these factors.
It clearly states non-smoker LC and smoker LC is 2 distinct diseases,theyve thought this for decades and now have been able to seperate the 2,destroying the fabled myth of second hand smoke all together! Only 6-9% of life long smokers if ever get any cancers at all,they injest 50-60 or more years of daily smoking and your trying to draw a conclusion to worthless second hand smoke! The smokers are in that smoke 100% of the time and non-smokers maybe 30 miniues in DILUTED BY 100,000 TTIMES that of direct smoking!
Your frigging nut case arse!
Smokers LC hasnt been proven yet. The end points have never ever met. What we are probably seeing is the human bodies own genetic flaws as if everyone who smoked got cancer then itd be a slam dunk its just not the case at all!
the "threshold" theory and the "no threshold" theory.
The threshold theory argues that below a certain level any exposures to carcinogens literally "disappear" because they get swallowed up in all the random chaos of how the body works at a microscopic level. The "no threshold" theory says that even the smallest possible event, such as a one second exposure to a small beam of sunlight, could be the "trigger" that later produces a deadly cancer. The "no threshold" theory applied in meteorology would say that yes, a single flap of a single butterfly's wings in the backwoods of Australia could have "caused" Hurricane Katrina. The "threshold" scientists say that such an idea is nonsense. The Antismokers' "no safe level" argument is a "no-threshold" argument: they're saying even very small exposures to ETS could have as big an effect on lung cancer as a butterfly's wings in Australia could have on US hurricanes.
confederate1989

Columbia, KY

#13 Dec 5, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
"'Never-smokers MIGHT be exposed to a carcinogen, not from cigarettes..."
Yes, it seems the results of this study do SUGGEST that this MIGHT be the case. Or, perhaps the differences in concentration of various chemicals between mainstream and sidestream smoke due to different temperatures and different levels of available oxygen during combustion as well as filtration) result in a higher number of carcinogens from cigarettes becoming active in never-smokers whose lung cancers are caused by SHS exposure.[Some of the carcinogens from cigarettes are 10-50 times as concentrated in sidestream as in mainstream smoke.] That could explain the "different molecular pathways". Or--most likely--the truth is a combination of these factors.
Its called RADON exposures arse or dont you read the papers!

The only thing that is known to cause cell breakdown and cancer is radioactive materials ie radon in concentration,the epa says 4 curies/pi or something like that is safe and others state up to 20 curies/pi is safe.........nobody knows for sure! As far as smoking goes they are always using a substance such as asbestos and smokers or radon and smokers or something and smokers to pump up the realtive risk factors,then say well we saw more tumors in smokers associated to this element than we did in non-smokers with the same cancer etc..........its always a wash,its anti-tobacco spin and always has been since doll and his epidemiology trying to CORRELATE SMOKING AND LC!

Weve even looked into all the epidemiology on direct smoking and LC and its always the same BIAS!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#14 Dec 5, 2011
confederate1989 wrote:
<quoted text>
It clearly states non-smoker LC and smoker LC is 2 distinct diseases
Ah, again you offer this statement showing a belief that smoking causes lung cancer. If "smoker LC" is a disease that only afflicts smokers, then cause/effect is clear.
confederate1989

Columbia, KY

#15 Dec 5, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, again you offer this statement showing a belief that smoking causes lung cancer. If "smoker LC" is a disease that only afflicts smokers, then cause/effect is clear.
In order for causation to be proven a pathway must included the end points and this is not shown in any form. They have established whats been found in smokers is diferent than that of non-smokers regardless of exposure to shs/ets. The point here is something else is going on in both smokers and non-smokers to trigger these diferent cancers,is it their immune systems or is it something else! Its really starting to sound like an immune system gone berserk unable to simply repair itself.Since the vast majority of cancers are found in the elderly it is safer to assume a genetic breakdown in the immune responce rather than just exposures to carcinogens.
Ponsnobby

New Zealand

#16 Dec 5, 2011
Good use of US proxy servers there Tweeter.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17 Dec 5, 2011
ItsAFact wrote:
<quoted text>
"Second hand smoking causes cancer" Prove it lately? Why of course you have not and neither has anyone else.
The only thing second hand smoke is proven to do is wad the panties of panzies.
Thanks for your opinion @ ItsAFact
Maybe this will help you

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent)(1, 3, 5, 7).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).

Some research also suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18 Dec 5, 2011
1.What is secondhand smoke?
Secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke, involuntary smoke, and passive smoke) is the combination of “sidestream” smoke (the smoke given off by a burning tobacco product) and “mainstream” smoke (the smoke exhaled by a smoker)(1–4).

People can be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places, such as bars, restaurants, and recreational settings. In the United States, the source of most secondhand smoke is from cigarettes, followed by pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products (4).

The amount of smoke created by a tobacco product depends on the amount of tobacco available for burning. The amount of secondhand smoke emitted by smoking one large cigar is similar to that emitted by smoking an entire pack of cigarettes.

2.How is secondhand smoke exposure measured?
Secondhand smoke exposure can be measured by testing indoor air for nicotine or other chemicals in tobacco smoke. Exposure to secondhand smoke can also be tested by measuring the level of cotinine (a by-product of the breakdown of nicotine) in a nonsmoker’s blood, saliva, or urine (1). Nicotine, cotinine, carbon monoxide, and other smoke-related chemicals have been found in the body fluids of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.

3.Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Among the more than 7,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, for example, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia.

At least 69 of the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke cause cancer (1, 5, 6). These include the following:

Arsenic
Benzene
Beryllium (a toxic metal)
1,3–Butadiene (a hazardous gas)
Cadmium
Chromium (a metallic element)
Ethylene oxide
Nickel (a metallic element)
Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element)
Vinyl chloride
Other toxic chemicals in secondhand smoke are suspected to cause cancer, including (1):

Formaldehyde
Benzo[&#945;]pyrene
Toluene
Many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, such as the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the tobacco product is smoked, and, for cigarettes and cigars, the material in which the tobacco is wrapped (1, 3, 4).
ItsAFact

New Market, MD

#19 Dec 5, 2011
Kiara1942 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your opinion @ ItsAFact
Maybe this will help you
Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent)(1, 3, 5, 7).
Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).
Some research also suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers
"Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke" That's freakin hilarious... Nobody can identify anyone who has died from exposure to SHS!!!
ItsAFact

New Market, MD

#20 Dec 5, 2011
Kiara1942 wrote:
1.What is secondhand smoke?
Secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke, involuntary smoke, and passive smoke) is the combination of “sidestream” smoke (the smoke given off by a burning tobacco product) and “mainstream” smoke (the smoke exhaled by a smoker)(1–4).
People can be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places, such as bars, restaurants, and recreational settings. In the United States, the source of most secondhand smoke is from cigarettes, followed by pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products (4).
The amount of smoke created by a tobacco product depends on the amount of tobacco available for burning. The amount of secondhand smoke emitted by smoking one large cigar is similar to that emitted by smoking an entire pack of cigarettes.
2.How is secondhand smoke exposure measured?
Secondhand smoke exposure can be measured by testing indoor air for nicotine or other chemicals in tobacco smoke. Exposure to secondhand smoke can also be tested by measuring the level of cotinine (a by-product of the breakdown of nicotine) in a nonsmoker’s blood, saliva, or urine (1). Nicotine, cotinine, carbon monoxide, and other smoke-related chemicals have been found in the body fluids of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.
3.Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Among the more than 7,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, for example, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia.
At least 69 of the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke cause cancer (1, 5, 6). These include the following:
Arsenic
Benzene
Beryllium (a toxic metal)
1,3–Butadiene (a hazardous gas)
Cadmium
Chromium (a metallic element)
Ethylene oxide
Nickel (a metallic element)
Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element)
Vinyl chloride
Other toxic chemicals in secondhand smoke are suspected to cause cancer, including (1):
Formaldehyde
Benzo[&#945;]pyrene
Toluene
Many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, such as the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the tobacco product is smoked, and, for cigarettes and cigars, the material in which the tobacco is wrapped (1, 3, 4).
Based upon similar, thouugh much more substantial evidence I have declared you to be a known carcinogen. Please dispose of yourself accordingly.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21 Dec 5, 2011
Yeah right ItsAFact
You are also one those people who only think about themselves....selfish.
I hope you are not a parent, children under your care will be in great danger.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tauranga, New Zealand Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kiwi drug accused Tony de Malmanche 'at real ri... Jan 20 Beastly 2
Teacher stabbed at Te Puke High School (May '10) Jan 13 facts only 26
New Zealand's Christmas Bethlehem baby Dec '14 Torqueing Heads 5
New Zealand reader finds 1944 story of his war ... Dec '14 idi amin livinabin 2
Do you need an urgent loan? (Aug '13) Dec '14 Iamstu Pid 7
Second man charged over stabbing Dec '14 PC Undercover 1
Former Ac/DC drummer Phil Rudd risked arrest in... Nov '14 Xstains In Name Only 1
More from around the web

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:58 pm PST