Banning smokers in public, yea or nay

[cutter7]

Second hand smoke kills people. why should none smokers be subjected to other peoples poisonous emissions?

I don't care what drugs you use just don't subject other people to your poison.

[simnut]

None of the things you listed have a negative impact on other peoples health and are known carcinogens.

Perhaps not, but these do.

ANY type of burning wood (fireplaces, woodstoves, bon fires, slash burns)

Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse. (One study found it to be 30 times more potent a carcinogen.) The smoke from an ordinary wood fire contains hundreds of compounds known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and irritating to the respiratory system. Most of the particles generated by burning wood are smaller than one micron—a size believed to be most damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so fine that they can evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into the bloodstream, posing a risk to the heart. Particles this size also resist gravitational settling, remaining airborne for weeks at a time.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... e-delusion

Any type of vehicle exhaust.

Diesel exhaust is a major part of outdoor air pollution. Diesel exhaust is believed to play a role in other health problems, such as eye irritation, headache, asthma and other lung diseases, heart disease, and possibly immune system problems.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercaus ... el-exhaust

T

he daily exposure to free radicals from car exhaust, smokestacks and even your neighbors’ barbecue could be as harmful as smoking, according to a new study. Many combustion processes, such as those in a car, create tiny particles that may act as brewing pots and carriers for free radicals — chemicals believed to cause lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases.

http://drivethrulies.wordpress.com/2008 ... an-linger/

Now, which one of these would you like to ban first? Cigarettes or one of the MAJOR causes of lung cancer causing pollutants?

[Fancy]

Cigarettes are a proven health hazard - they should be first.

[simnut]

Cigarettes are a proven health hazard - they should be first.

You're not reading are you....just talking off the cuff....

[Fancy]

You posted "could be as harmful as smoking".

[Fancy]

The exact amount of risk the pollutants pose is hard to estimate, Dellinger said during his presentation

I'm not into putting much stock into anyone's blogs unless they have the facts and studies to back them up. There's a lot of maybe/could be/possibly when it is a known fact cigarettes and second hand smoke DO cause cancer and other health problems.

[simnut]

You posted "could be as harmful as smoking".

Just read the selection above that then.....you['re not reading...

[simnut]

I'm not into putting much stock into anyone's blogs unless they have the facts and studies to back them up. There's a lot of maybe/could be/possibly when it is a known fact cigarettes and second hand smoke DO cause cancer and other health problems.

If you would read the blog, then the publications that his information came from.....you would have your proof. Here is the link at the bottom of his "blog".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17127644

Read this....
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ ... wood-smoke

..and this...
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/en ... is-eng.php

...or this....and note what I've quoted out of this article below.....
http://ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml

Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both are carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.

....and these are CERTAINLY not "blogs".......

[Fancy]

What is their conclusion compared to cigarette smoke?

If you would read the blog, then the publications that his information came from.....you would have your proof. Here is the link at the bottom of his "blog".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17127644

[simnut]

What is their conclusion compared to cigarette smoke?

Read just above....

[Fancy]

My question was in response to this:

In the concluding section, we return to the two key issues above to summarize (1) what is currently known about the health effects of inhaled woodsmoke at exposure levels experienced in developed countries, and (2) whether there exists sufficient reason to believe that woodsmoke particles are sufficiently different to warrant separate treatment from other regulated particles. In addition, we provide recommendations for additional woodsmoke research.

[simnut]

Here is another read.....

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychoso ... ealth.html

Here are some highlights....

While no single study can say that there is a 100% chance of health problems as a result of exposure to ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke), an association between ETS and various health conditions is considered very likely

No proof at this point that there is a link. I would think there might be...but here is some comparisons from this article.....

Various studies suggest that passive exposure to ETS over an eight-hour day is comparable to directly smoking one to three cigarettes.

And that is a CONSTANT exposure to a smoker.......not just walking by a smoker.....

For example, it is thought that someone exposed to ETS will breathe in the same amount of the following contaminants as if they actively smoked one cigarette:

same amount of carbon monoxide in one or two hours,
same number of smoke particles in eleven hours,
same amount of acrolein in seven hours, and
same amounts of nicotine and hydrogen cyanide in fifty hours.

This is what a "second hand smoker" would inhale (if exposed to a smoker over an eight hour day).

Remember, they are talking about non smokers and smokers in an enclosed (aka a room) environment....NOT outside!

[Fancy]

Which didn't ansewr my question. Did you find the conclusion on the pubmed site?

[simnut]

What I am trying to say is this......

You have far bigger worries about what gets into your lungs than the smoker you just walked by. Look at all the vehicles driving on the road.....look at all the oil refineries etc belching "stuff" into the atmosphere.....look at all the wood burning fireplaces and slash burns......people cleaning up their yard........cigarette smoke is a VERY minor ...VERY minor part of it...

Another thing...all these studies on second hand smoke refer to INDOOR smoking....NOT outdoor smoking. I have yet to find a study that tried to measure ETS outside.....hasn't been done as far as I can see...so take all the "second hand smoke" studies with a grain of salt. We already have basically banned all smoking indoors....which answers the issues WITH these studies!

[Fancy]

This isn't just about "walking by" though is it.