Re: How to tell when you're too old to gig


"Les Cargill" <lcargill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47be1e7a$0$16667$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The question of whether secondhand smoke is dangerous is no longer open
to question, it has clearly been shown to be so, the Surgeon General's
report on the matter makes that real clear.

No, it does not. Sorry.

Uh, yes it does, sorry.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

[Quoted excerpts from the SG's 2007 report]
1.. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in
children and adults who do not smoke.
2.. Supporting Evidence
3.. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or
carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl
chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
a.. Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen
(cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has
concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen. Exposure of
adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the
cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
1.. Supporting Evidence
2.. Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher
in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
a.. Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate
adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal
functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase
the risk of a heart attack.
b.. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work
increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
c.. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work
increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.

a..
1.. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of
exposure to secondhand smoke.
2.. Supporting Evidence
3.. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to
become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow
velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing
the risk of a heart attack.
a.. Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and
damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper
airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more
asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report
of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health,
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22
national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters
were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30
independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers'
comments.

[Unquote]


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html

Oh, really? An article written by a paid consultant for the tobacco
industry is the sort of thing you consider persuasive, that's your idea of
sound scientific advice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gio_Batta_Gori

"Gori and the Tobacco Industry
In 1980 Gori became Vice President of the Franklin Institute Policy Analysis
Center (FIPAC), a consulting firm funded initially by a $400,000 grant from
the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W).[4] Following its initial
formation, FIPAC continued to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in
funding annually from B&W.[5][6][7] Gori worked on Research & Development
projects for B&W Tobacco, such as analysis of the sensory perception of
smoke and how to reduce the amount of tobacco in cigarettes. By 1989, Gori
was a full-time consultant on environmental tobacco smoke issues for the
Tobacco Institute in the Institute's ETS/IAQ (Indoor Air Quality)
Consultants Project.[8] In May 1993, Gori entered an exclusive consulting
arrangement with B&W Tobacco, receiving $200/hour a day to $1,000/day for
attending conferences.[9]"


The point is moot, anyway - a private establishment cannot
be a purely public space. Don't like it? Leave. FWIW, that's
worked since my parents taught it to me when I was about two
years old.

So if people are getting food poisoning in a restaraunt they should just
leave and the state has nothing to say about the matter? If a club has no
emergency lighting, no fire extinguishers and a locked fire escape, any
members of the public who don't like that should just leave, the state has
nothing to say about the matter? The govt. should have no interest in
whether a private business is run in a way that has a negative impact on
public health and safety? What color is the sky on your planet?


.

Loading