quote:

Originally posted by nightlight:

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer: Cigarettes may have a higher level of CO than car exhaust, ...

You are giving that piece of junk far too much credit. If you read the whole thing...

LOL. I'm not basing my statement on that "We used zip lock bags" article.

I believe the number cited by IKIA is correct as far as vehicles passing emissions tests.

So what if 4% of tobacco smoke is CO? There just isn't that much there to make any big difference.

So a smoker might have twice the CO in their blood as a nonsmoker. So what? You don't hear anybody saying nonsmokers are in danger. Double that is the same thing. Big deal.

I had a blood test done in 83 or 84. I remember the doctor not saying anything until he said, "You have a slightly elevated level of CO."

I said, "I do?"

He said, "Yes. You smoke. It's no big deal."

quote:

Originally posted by I know it all:
You are unbelievable! To qualify as propaganda in your eyes nightlight anything that says anything bad about tobacco. So anything I post is propaganda and anything you post is not?

I didn't make conclusion because it was antismoking article but I first explained why that specific article was a transparent antismoking propaganda. It is the content of the article that objectively makes it so. As usually, you don't defend on substance of the argument (because there is no substance behind your position).

In that "experiment" they are comparing

a) concentrated tobacco smoke, obtained under oxygen starved burning (0.5-1 liter/min in a small flask, which is an order of magnitude less air than a smoker inhales in 1 minute), collected in airtight manner

b) with a 'second hand' exhaust, collected from an open air into a ziplock bag waved at unspecified distance and closed at unspecified time, from the well tuned and warmed up car optimized for minimum emission (as stated in the article).

If they wished to compare apples with apples, which obviously wasn't what they were after, they should have placed an airtight flask on the car exhaust pipe and collected exhaust there to compare with their cigarette setup. Alternatively, they should have had cigarette setup operate in the same open air as the car exhaust, with airflow comparable to that of a smoker, and then used the same ziplock bag collection method, handled in exactly the same way and at the same distance from cigarette, as the one used in their car exhaust collection.

That is why the "experiment" is a cheap antismoking propaganda for kids, not because my views differ from those of the authors. Their strategic sprinkling of attribute "toxic" everywhere "cigarette" or "smoking" is mentioned, merely confirms what their actual rigged procedure already demonstrated -- it is objectively a worthless piece of antismoking junk "science", using a ridiculously contrived setup, skewed to produce "data" that supports their indoctrination objectives.

PS: you shouldn't quote complete previous post since that clutters the thread, making the space requirements (and time to go over it) grow proportionately to the square of number of entries, instead of linearly in number of entries. So, take an extra moment and delete parts you are not specifically talking about. The original post is still there if a reader wishes to check the larger context.

quote:

b) with a 'second hand' exhaust, collected from an open air into a ziplock bag waved at unspecified distance and closed at unspecified time, from the well tuned and warmed up car optimized for minimum emission (as stated in the article).

Funny that, your comprehension must be different to mine. I would have guessed the kids that smoke would have made every effort just as you would to collect a very concentrated sample, I would have thought every care would have been taken when collecting the car exhaust as the results for car exhaust are far more consistent than those of tobacco. You also failed to see that the acompanying photos of the burning cigarette looks just like a cigarette, which is being drawn on.

Your full of it nightlight, you just can't handle the truth. It is a college experiment you can't say is driven by anti research dollars. The tobacco propaganda machine sponsors all your bull plop research. You wouldn't expect such an ethical industry to tell lies would you.

quote:

Btw, remember Repace(?) sneaking into that cigar smoking event? The best he could say was the CO levels were similar to standing next to a busy freeway.

No I don't remember that. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Nightlight, thankyou for giving your stamp of approval to the American Lung Association. I can only assume you approve of the content of the site.

quote:

Quit Smoking
Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 430,700 American lives each year. Smoking costs the United States approximately $97.2 billion each year in health-care costs and lost productivity. It is directly responsible for 87 percent of lung cancer cases and causes most cases of emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Find out more about how smoking has affected you community, see American Lung Association State of Tobacco Control: 2005 Report.

So I assume this is all correct in your opinion?

I'll just add as well that the CO emissions They achieved with this experiment were taken with the vehicle idling, CO levels are much lower if the vehicle is being driven at cruise speed. Also at cruise speed the turbulence created by the motor vehicle passing through the air ensures a rapid dilution of emissions. This is nothing like tobacco smoke you are sucking directly into your lungs. I really want to reiterate how ridiculous this comparison is as you and I know no one who sucks on the tailpipe of a car for pleasure or any other reason.

How does the usefulness of motor transport compare with tobacco? Buggered if I know. How many people do you know who have moved well away from roads so they can keep smoking? If you live in a place of extreme air pollution you are at least doubling the harm by smoking.

IKIA:

quote:

quote:
Btw, remember Repace(?) sneaking into that cigar smoking event? The best he could say was the CO levels were similar to standing next to a busy freeway.

No I don't remember that. I have no idea what you are talking about.

That's because I wasn't speaking to you, even indirectly.

Cool, for a minute I thought I might have alzheimer's!

quote:

Originally posted by I know it all:
Cool, for a minute I thought I might have alzheimer's!

You might. How would you know if you did? LOL

I found this quote I really like. Figured this was as good a place as any to post it.

As I understand it, those who experience birth have a 100% mortality rate.

quote:

Originally posted by ladyteal:
I found this quote I really like. Figured this was as good a place as any to post it.

As I understand it, those who experience birth have a 100% mortality rate.

They need to ban it!! Haha I guess there is some benefit to being born, actually you can go back a little further if you like:
As I understand it, those who experience conception have a 100% mortality rate! this depends on your point of view.

Dear friends we welcome you in our online cigarettes store

www.cigarettes-sale-online.com

cheap marlboro cigarettes $11
cheap camel cigarettes $9.5
cheap winston cigarettes $8.5

delivery to the USA within 14 days!