The anti's complaints are a bunch of 'CRAP'!!!!!
They complain about:
1. Having smoke blown in their faces
2. There are toxic chemicals in SHS
3. No amount of ventilation can remove ALL of the toxins
4. Smoking in public is like PEEING in a public pool

All of these complaints are a lot of feebleminded,idiotic,stupid,frothing at the mouth hog-wash and BS!!!

Here is why:
1.I am sitting here trying to blow a stream of smoke more than 6 feet and it can not be done,the stream just spreads too fast!!
I held up a piece of paper and tried to blow smoke through the paper and it can not be done.

Separate smoking/nonsmoking sections prevent them from having smoke 'blown' in their faces and, if that is not enough, no more that a partition of paper will do the job.

2.
According to the CDC:
"You normally take in small amounts of arsenic in the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat. Of these, food is usually the largest source of arsenic.

The total amount of arsenic you take in from these sources is generally about 50 micrograms (1 microgram equals one-millionth of a gram) each day."
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs2.html

1 microgram is equal to 1,000 nanograms(ng/1 billionth of a gram). 50 micrograms is 50,000 nanograms.

The total amount of all the arsenic in the mainstream and side-stream smoke emitted by the average cigarette is 32 nanograms.

You would have to inhale ALL of the smoke from 1,562 cigarettes to equal the amount of arsenic you normally take in every day.

A typical smoker will inhale only about 8ng per cigarette and would have to smoke 6,248 cigarettes per day to equal the amount of arsenic they normally take in every day.

That is smoke 4 and 1/3 cigarettes every minute of every hour all day long!!!

A non-smoker sitting 3 feet from a smoker breaths only 1/2 of 1% of the emitted smoke.
(Note: this assumes no ventilation)

That non-smoker would have to be exposed to the smoke from 1,562 x 100 x 2 = 312,400 cigarettes to equal the amount of arsenic they normally take in every day.

That is be exposed to the SHS of 217 cigarettes per minute of every hour all day long to equal the amount of arsenic they normally take in every day.

There is 'NO SAFE LEVEL' of exposure to most things in life.

3. Probably not, what ventilation systems do is replace the air in a public place with fresh outside air.

Thanks to Marcus Aurelious at http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

For instance let's assume a pub 50' x 40' x 10' ceiling; with an occupancy rating of 80 people.

Building codes where I live would require 2400 cfm fresh air for the example above. (80 people x 30 cfm / occupant).
And 50 x 40 x 10 = 20,000 cubic feet of air. Now to determine what 1 air change is for that 20,000 cubic feet is, divide by 60 (minutes per hour, since fans are rated cfm). So 20,000 / 60 = 333 cfm. Now 2400 cfm / 333 = 7.2 air changes per hour.

60 (minutes per hour) / 7.2 = 8.3 minutes.

Meaning that 2400 cfm in the 50 x 40 x 10 building will exchange the air in the pub with fresh air every 8.3 minutes.Thank you Marc!

Now; if 79 of those 80 people smoked and one did not and the 79 all lit up at the same time, after 4 minutes 1/2 of the air in the place has been replaced with fresh outside air.

The air is being replaced almost faster than SHS is being generated and within 8.3 minutes after the last smoke has gone out has been totally replaced with fresh outside air.

Unfortunately,that fresh outside air is not free of toxic chemicals.(See #2 above)

4.This is so stupid as a comparison because the water in that pool does not get replaced with fresh water every 8.3 minutes!!!

An equal comparison would look like this.
Let's consider a public pool that 40 ft x 100 ft x 5 ft deep. This is the same cubic volume as the pub above.This pool would have to have 2400 cubic feet of water coming in every minute and the same amount going out.

A cubic foot of water is 7.5 gallons, this means there is 18,000 gallons of water per minute coming into the pool and going out of the pool.
WARNING: DO NOT STAND NEAR THE PIPE AT EITHER END OF THE POOL!!!

Antis bitches and claims are a lot of feebleminded,idiotic,stupid,frothing at the mouth hog-wash and BS!!!

Gary K.

quote:

Unfortunately,that fresh outside air is not free of toxic chemicals.(See #2 above)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs2.html

However, urban areas generally have mean arsenic levels in air ranging from 20 to 30 ng/m3.

1 cubic meter is equal to 1,000 liters and our smoker's cube holds 8,000 liters of air.

The non-smoker breathes 37.5 liters or .005% or 1/2 of 1/100th of the air and no more than 1/2 of 1/100th of the chemicals in the SHS!!

According to a study done for the Mass. Dept of Public Health, the total smoke output(both mainstream and sidestream) for an average cigarette contained 32 nanograms(ng) of arsenic.
(The 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study. Final Report 07/24/00)

After 5 minutes and one cigarette our non-smoker would inhale all of 1/6th of 1ng of arsenic. (Assuming no ventilation)

However, urban areas generally have mean arsenic levels in air ranging from 20 to 30 ng/m3.

The fresh outside air has 120-180 times as much arsenic as is added by breathing SHS!!!!

Gary K.

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:

quote:

Unfortunately,that fresh outside air is not free of toxic chemicals.(See #2 above)

The fresh outside air has 120-180 times as much arsenic as is added by breathing SHS!!!!

Gary K.

What about the plutonium? The ANTIS are always bringing this one up.

Polonium! Plutonium takes extra work

Polonium-210

The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Management estimates that if you've smoked for 50 years, polonium-210 accounts for 1 percent of your overall lung cancer risk.
According to data from Argonne National Laboratories, the chances of polonium causing fatal cancer in a two-pack-a-day smoker after 25 years may be less than one in 1,000.

The non-smoker breathes 1/2 of 1/100th of the air and no more than 1/2 of 1/100th of the chemicals in the SHS!!

A non-smoker's risk of lung cancer from Polonium-210 exposure from SHS is so small as to be beyond my being able to calculate it!!!
Gary K.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/070928.html

Does smoking organically grown tobacco lower the chance of lung cancer?
(NOTE: This is an excerpt of the column with BOLD added.-Gary K.)

Cecil replies:

Nothing in the world, DM, is so powerful as an idea that tells people exactly what they want to hear, and by this standard the notion that fertilizer-borne polonium might be the truly lethal ingredient in cigarettes is a blue-ribbon champ.

Anti-corporate types get another tale of ghoulish multinationals swigging the peons' blood; conspiracy freaks get another instance where They keep us from discovering What's Really Going On.

The only problem: beyond a few key nuggets of truth, the story doesn't hold up.

Nugget of truth number 1 is that yes, there's polonium-210 in tobacco (as well as radioactive lead-210). It's mainly absorbed from the soil, though some amount of polonium-bearing dust adheres to tobacco's unusually sticky leaves.

Nugget 2 is that yes, using phosphate fertilizers increases the polonium content of tobacco, as mineral phosphate can contain significant amounts of uranium, and thus more of its decay products.

But tobacco's hardly the only place one encounters polonium. Other plants absorb it too, meaning it's in the food we eat, possibly as much as 20 cigarettes' worth in a day's intake; at any given time our bodies contain about 23,000 cigarettes' worth of polonium, largely in the liver, kidneys, spleen, and bone marrow.

Generally the cancer risk due to polonium-210 inhalation is believed to be quite small.

Doctors writing to the New England Journal of Medicine in 1982 compared the radiation exposure from smoking a pack and a half daily to getting 300 chest x-rays in a year, but (a) that's really not so much radiation and (b) they still couldn't assess the resulting cancer threat.

The alleged claim by C. Everett Koop that radioactivity causes 90 percent of tobacco-related cancer has so far resisted the tracking skills of my research team (it's all over the Web, typically attributed to a Koop appearance "on national television"), but if he said it, it's way off from what everyone else says — including surgeon generals’ reports from before, during, and after his tenure.

The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Management estimates that if you've smoked for 50 years, polonium-210 accounts for 1 percent of your overall lung cancer risk.

According to data from Argonne National Laboratories, the chances of polonium causing fatal cancer in a two-pack-a-day smoker after 25 years may be less than one in 1,000.

Every individual who takes in air regularly also exhales. The only difference is the attitude of the inhaler. Each is taking in the exhaust of the others on the planet.

Gkayser30, Thanks so much for this info. I will put it to good use.

Now gkayser30, you don't want to confuse the anti-smoking haters out there will all these silly facts. It just confuses them.

quote:

Every individual who takes in air regularly also exhales. The only difference is the attitude of the inhaler. Each is taking in the exhaust of the others on the planet.

Antis insist on blaming smoking for causing lung cancer.

In his book 'Innumeracy - Mathamatical Illiteracy and It's Consequences', page 32, John Allen Paulos writes about immortality like this:

"Now for better news of a kind of immortal persistence. First, take a deep breath. Assume Shakespeare's account is accurate and Julius Caesar gasped -'You too Brutus' - before breathing his last. What are the chances you just inhaled a molecule which Caesar exhaled in his dying breath?

The surprising answer is that, with probability better than 99 percent, you did inhale just such a molecule."

He then uses relatively simple math to prove his statement.

Now, consider the fact that, since 1945, a huge number of radioactive particles(millions of tons?) have been spewed into the atmosphere by the setting off of atomic devices of one sort or another.

Consider, how many of these radioactive particles are lodged in your lungs, and more and more with each breath!!!

Are you really surprised that; as smoking rates decrease, lung cancer incidence rates are increasing???

Gary K.