New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
That reminds me that I'll most likely be playing the train game "Ticket to Ride" with the in-laws. Thanks. This concludes my postings for the day, and likely until July 21. I will try to catch up to you then. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2819)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
BTW, for those of you who cannot spot the straw man, let me show it to youNever, anywhere, did I state that there needs to be a "long term study" using real children in real time. Once that phrase "long term study" is injected into that, it becomes a straw man argument, a misrepresentation of my position. I hope this helps you folks to understand what I mean by claiming that they're making a straw man out of my statement. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2818)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
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. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2816)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
LOL You have your moments, I'll give you that. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2814)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
And now YOU bring a straw man into the mix. Lovely. Keep my kids out of it, thank you. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2811)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
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. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2808)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
No, visiting the in-laws for a week. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2806)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
Smokers who toss their butts are breaking the law. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2804)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
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. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2803)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
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. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2802)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
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.) ;-) (Friday Jul 11 | post #2796)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
Again, you're making a straw man argument. This time not even in a post to me! That is totally bad form. Do you even know what a straw man argument is? (Friday Jul 11 | post #2791)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
I accept your apology on that minor thingIf they see me as "insane" , it is only due to the way you have portrayed my post. That is what makes it a straw man, and I will not let you, or anybody else, get away with creating straw men out of my postsUnless my wife and kids are in the car, I typically drive with the windows down. Use your eyes, and look around when you're in the car with your windows closed and your AC on... you'll see that there are plenty of people who have their windows open. Many of them will be smokingI have ridden with smokers, and they tend to smoke with the window open at least about 2 inches when they're running the AC or traveling at highway speeds. It's a matter of air pressure differential that makes it so the window doesn't need to be so far down when the car is at higher speeds. At lower speeds, the windows should be opened more. Both the Ott study and the Rees study confirm thisYou mean "down", and as I've said before, read the Rees study, at least. (The Ott study is more technicalReally? I've answered this several times. If I answer it again, what would it matter to you? Go back and read the previous answersWhat's to run from? As I have said many times, I stand behind my statement. I do not stand behind the straw man you continue to twist that statement into, and each time you bring it up, I will shoot it down the same way. Straw man arguments are not valid, and I will not validate yours by responding to it the way you are trying to lead me to. Your straw man is not what I said, nor is it what I meant; surely you realize that by now. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2788)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
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. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2783)
New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids
And you never willApparently not. You'd have stopped posting days ago if that were trueCorrect. You are in the wrong, and you have made a straw man argument that you've been using as a red herring to divert the discussion from the real issue. You've turned this thread into a discussion of your straw man, despite numerous examples that such measurements are done rather commonly in anti-smoking researchBecause that is your straw man. I was nothing of the sortSo, you didn't read a single one of those links I provided for you. I guess I should not be surprised. You are so narrowly focused on your straw man that any attempt to dissuade you from your wrongheaded notion is in vain. (Friday Jul 11 | post #2782)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
