[hmmmm ... let's see, how many times does an automobile exhaust it's breath traveling down the expressway every minute and in what volume compared to a smoker. Hint, do you think your chances of survial are better closing your garage door with a bunch of smokers or leaving your car engine running.]


Friday, August 4, 2006

"Smog technician not just blowing smoke
A smoker, he compares his breath to a car's emissions. Guess which is dirtier?"

By COURTNEY PERKES

The Orange County Register

"COSTA MESA – Smog technician Christopher Delo pulls a long, coiled probe out of the exhaust pipe of a late-model Volvo. The car passed smog certification, so it's time for his smoke break.

Delo lights a Marlboro, still holding the pollution-measuring nozzle. He takes a drag and puffs directly into the end of the probe to "smog" himself.

Flashing across the computer screen at Newport Smog are readings for air-polluting molecules from partially burned fuel, including hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. The 1997 Volvo measured 50 parts per million of hydrocarbon emissions. Delo's breath reads 351.

In car terms, he's a spewing, gross polluter.

"I know over 2,000 chemicals are in a cigarette, but like a dummy, I still have to use them," says Delo, a two-pack-a-day smoker. "If you're pushing out more readings than your car, something's wrong. We don't run on combustion."

This year, California became the only state in the nation to classify second-hand smoke as a toxic air contaminant that causes premature births, heart disease and asthma.

"We've done such a good job of controlling auto exhaust that they're very clean, while someone blowing out cigarette exhaust is blowing out smoke," said Gennet Paauwe, spokeswoman for the state Air Resources Board.

Delo, 37, says he started smoking at 11. He watched his musician father perform in smoky bars. He had no trouble buying 50-cent packs from vending machines and liquor stores.

He knows all the health risks and can recite the anti-smoking statistics. But he has a hard habit to break.

Delo was married last month, and his wife wants him to quit. His doctor wants him to quit. His boss, a former smoker, wants him to quit. Delo's gone cold turkey several times, the longest for three years

"Nicotine only stays in your body three days," Delo says. "It's all mental."

Delo doesn't have health insurance and wants to avoid costly medical bills. He also estimates he's spending about $300 a month on his smokes.

"All the money I use for smoking, I could use for a vacation or saving to buy a home," he says. "That's thousands of dollars."

Delo explains that everyone exhales some contaminants because of the air they breathe. But when a non-smoking visitor took the test, the hydrocarbon reading came out at only 12 parts per million, about one-thirtieth of Delo's reading.

His high smog readings have stunned him and pushed his desire to beat his addiction.

Laura Garcia, a cardiovascular nurse at Anaheim Memorial Medical Center and a coordinator for the county's smoking-cessation program, said sometimes it's hard to find a fresh way of conveying the message against smoking.

"You've heard it over and over again," she said. "This is different – the way he's pursuing his experiment. We know how much we depend on our cars, and we look at our emissions and do our smog every year. That's something we can all relate to as adults."

Delo drives a Toyota Forerunner that has passed the smog test. He hopes to soon qualify for his own certificate.

"You've got to practice what you preach," he says. "This gives me some incentive."

OCREGISTER

I would say the smoking researcher stands a better chance of survival than the non-smoker in the air of California.

quote:

This year, California became the only state in the nation to classify second-hand smoke as a toxic air contaminant that causes premature births, heart disease and asthma.

Good grief...........it is unreal how these people just lie with impunity.

Smoking rates are down, places where one is exposed to SHS are down, thus exposure to SHS is WAAAAAAAY down........yet asthma rates continue to go WAAAY up.

I wonder if that was even a valid test? Is that probe designed to measure things at any temperature?

BTW, the amount of carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke would pass a smog test.

I have to edit this. The CO in SHS would pass a smog test. I don't know about mainstream smoke.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: squeezer,

Now that's a piece of propaganda, if I ever saw one.

There were a few things left out of this article. Was the smog testing done in a garage or partially enclosed space? If so (or even if not), how many cars per day are driven (therefore emitting "smog") into the testing area while this technician is present? How many cars does he test each day and how much time does he spend exposed to the exhaust of the cars he's testing? I'm assuming the car is turned off while he attaches the measuring device; if not, his theory is toast 'cause he'd be breathing in those emissions from that car and every other car he tests. Was a similar test done of a nonsmoking technician as a control? Just a few questions that came up as I read it.....but, then, it IS typical anti-smoker "scientific research".

Freedom, I wonder if this was EVEN DONE AT ALL.
The tool used to check exhaust emissions is a long tube which is stuck in the tailpipe.

I'm a mechanic, and I sure as hell wouldn't stick it in my mouth. I can't see how in the hell he could even get an actual reading. It really has me wondering.

It sounds like pure, un-adulterated BS propaganda to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Freedom:
Was a similar test done of a nonsmoking technician as a control?

"Delo explains that everyone exhales some contaminants because of the air they breathe. But when a non-smoking visitor took the test, the hydrocarbon reading came out at only 12 parts per million, about one-thirtieth of Delo's reading."

If you click on the link to the actual article, there is a pic showing him doing it.

And the sidebar:

• Second-hand smoke is responsible for a small part of Southern California smog. In less than three typical summer days in the county, cars, trucks and businesses produce as much carbon monoxide as smokers produce statewide in a year.

• In 2004, Orange County emitted 813 tons of carbon monoxide on a typical summer day.

• Each year in California tobacco smoke releases into the environment 40 tons of nicotine, 365 tons of fine particulates and 1,900 tons of carbon monoxide.

Ok, one would EXPECT cars, trucks, and businesses to emit a LOT more carbon monoxide than tobacco smoke.

IF their numbers are accurate...

Tobacco smoke releases 5.2 tons of carbon monoxide a day (1,900 tons a year / 365 = 5.2 [rounded off]).

813 tons of carbon monoxide are emitted on a typical summer day. So that leaves cars, trucks, and businesses to account for 807.8 tons.

So, yes, cars, trucks, and businesses DO emit much more carbon monoxide in three days than tobacco smoke emits in a year (807.8 x 3 = 2,423.4).

What they fail to mention is that cars, trucks, and businesses emit 294,847 tons of carbon monoxide in a year (807.8 x 365 = 294,847).

So that's 1,900 compared to 294,847.

And that means carbon monoxide from tobacco emissions is .64% (less than two-thirds of ONE percent) of total carbon monoxide emissions (5.2 / 813 = .0064 [rounded off] = .64%).

Not quite as impressive that way, is it?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tnsmoker,

OMG! I just re-read it again. I knew something wasn't quite right with those stats.

Here they are again. Pay attention to the words in bold.

• Second-hand smoke is responsible for a small part of Southern California smog. In less than three typical summer days in the county, cars, trucks and businesses produce as much carbon monoxide as smokers produce statewide in a year.

• In 2004, Orange County emitted 813 tons of carbon monoxide on a typical summer day.

• Each year in California tobacco smoke releases into the environment 40 tons of nicotine, 365 tons of fine particulates and 1,900 tons of carbon monoxide.

That's not just comparing apples and oranges, that's comparing apples and corn!

So ignore the rambling calculations in my previous post. They're meaningless.

(Just for fun... There are 58 counties in CA. Divide the 1,900 by 365 then by 58 for an average of .09 [rounded off]. That's .09 of a ton per county. Divide .09 by 813 for Orange County and get .01% which is one-hundredth of ONE percent of total Orange County carbon monoxide emissions attributable to tobacco smoke. Tobacco smoke is the LEAST of their environmental worries!)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tnsmoker,

The way I figure it, using summer days as the average day for the whole year (because that's the only number furnished), cars, trucks and businesses produce 3.5 million tons of carbon monoxide each year compared to smoker's 1,900 tons; about 1850 x more.

Well, ok, that's the easy way.

If something other than tobacco smoke emitted that minute amount, it wouldn't have received a mention, much less a sidebar.

I would think if smoke of any sort is a problem in California the entire population should be out watering everything constantly to prevent wild fires.

Every acre of the state should be irrigated in an effort to reduce smoke. What difference would it make in the water supply anyway, everyone in California carries bottled water from Europe. Just drain the swimming pools, since smoking has been reduced and smoking is not allowed near the ocean, that water should be fit enough to wash and bathe in.

I just looked at the pic on the link. You can all see the long tube I spoke of. I still DO NOT believe he could get an accurate reading this way. I do not believe that there is enough to measure in a human breath. Better, yet, the way to do it would be to blow smoke in a 2 liter bottle, or some such thing, then measure it.

After all the lies we are fed, forgive me for not buying ANY of this. This is a piss-poor piece of journalism (propaganda) if there ever was one. There are no controls, whatsoever in this "study", as Freedom has mentioned. This may as well be threw out the window.

I'm looking for the article I read about best/worst beaches in the country. I've got the one from the Delaware paper that Delaware beaches are among the cleanest, but I can't find the one that lists that at least 8 of California beaches are among the countries worst.

Granted it's about the water quality, but I spent more than 20 years in Delaware and if the water quality at the beaches there is better than California, California has some MAJOR trouble, and it sure ain't got nuthin' to do with cigarette butts.

This stuff is getting worse and worse. The future doesn't look particularly rosy for those who love freedom.

Gabz, when I was talking about a control, I meant a technician who also tested emissions and breathed the same amount of contaminants on a regular basis as the guy who smoked a cigarette. Geez, this stuff is making me think like a RESEARCHER. Perish the thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Freedom:
Gabz, when I was talking about a control, I meant a technician who also tested emissions and breathed the same amount of contaminants on a regular basis as the guy who smoked a cigarette. Geez, this stuff is making me think like a RESEARCHER. Perish the thought.

I think you mean me, Freedom. I posted the bit about the nonsmoker. You definitely ARE thinking like a researcher. LOL

It was Stan Glantz who got the California Air Resources Board to classify SHS as an outdoor air pollutant a few months ago - with some bizarre claim that it causes breast cancer, asthma, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if he tracked this guy down and paid him to do this "experiment"...We would be safer as a democracy if we locked Glantz up at Guantanamo for life in exchange for releasing the accused Al-quaeda members who are there now.

quote:

Originally posted by NickM_71:
It was Stan Glantz who got the California Air Resources Board to classify SHS as an outdoor air pollutant...We would be safer as a democracy if we locked Glantz up at Guantanamo for life...

Good idea. Wrong guy. Lock up the CARB board.

If you read the instructions for any of this equipment you are instructed to thoroughly clean the device between uses.

It is possible the reasercher used the device on the car and immediately used it again on himself and get a residual reading from the car as a result.

If cleaned before the non-smoker was tested they the results for the car and the non-smoker would be accurate, but not the test from the smoker.

This is why tests done by volunteers walking between venues with cheap devices can not be trusted either.