Smoking

[HerefordSire]

If you have an extra $1,000 and you smoke, you may want to run down to the cigarette shop and stock up on tobacco before they run out. The law just passed.

Prez and company have been the best salesmen that a few industries have ever had. Let's add the tobacco companies to that same list...

It is important to state that the tobacoo companies supported the legislature of this FDA regulation law. This means there is extra money in it or will increase the barrier for competition to entry. The old monopoly trick. It is just like Wal-Mart moving into a rural town. They lower their prices forcing the mom and pop businesses to cease to exist. The buying public thinks this is good, and it is for a while, until Wal-Mart increases prices higher that the mom and pop stores originally were.

 

[HerefordSire]

What will these lunatics think of next?

A New Cigarette Hazard: 'Third-Hand Smoke'
.
.
.
Third-hand smoke is what one smells when a smoker gets in an elevator after going outside for a cigarette, he said, or in a hotel room where people were smoking. "Your nose isn't lying," he said. "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: 'Get away.'"
.
.
.
Among the substances in third-hand smoke are hydrogen cyanide, used in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid; toluene, found in paint thinners; arsenic; lead; carbon monoxide; and even polonium-210, the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. Eleven of the compounds are highly carcinogenic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/healt ... .html?_r=1

 

[SRBeef]

...The data proves that smoking does not cause cancer. Smoking does the opposite. It allows us to live longer. Read the negative replies I received. If you notice, almost every one of the negative replies are women which is why I started wondering if this was a woman thing.[/i]

You can't possibly be serious about this are you?

I again would like to register a "negative" reply, based in part by watching my father die from smoking related lung and heart failure, premature from what it needed to be.

The black goo which fouled his lungs and reduced their ability to supply oxygen to his brain was very, very obvious and did NOT allow him to "live longer". Quite the opposite.

I am not a woman. I have a very close friend who IS a woman and one thing about her and "women" is that, rather than being "negative and a woman thing" they tend often to tell the truth more than we men do... Maybe that is what we are seeing here.

As I posted earlier, smokers will find amazing ways to rationalize their addiction...

Jim

 

[HerefordSire]

The fact is that when the folks that smoke get sick from their own actions, they expect medical care, usually very expensive medical care. This is what happened to my father. It is unbelieveable what his last few weeks in a hospital intensive care ward dying from smoking caused lung problems cost.

At this point smoking becomes a society problem. Who pays for this care and who gets care and who doesn't due to cost???

If you choose to smoke that is your decision as long as you don't make me breathe the same deadly smoke and don't make me pay for the medical care you will likely require from your own smoking choice.

The FDA is expected to look out for dangers to our population's health. The idea that this is some Nazi-like plot I find unbelievable and another way smokers rationalize their addiction.

I would not participate in this discussion except for my hope that even one person reads it and quits and avoids the fate of my father. The younger you quit the less the damage.

Jim

How far are you from this plant Jim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Nu ... ower_Plant

This just happened but doesn't appear to be life threathening, yet.

Officials at the Dresden Nuclear Power plant in Morris, Ill., say they're investigating the leak of a radioactive hydrogen isotope. Elevated levels of tritium, a by-product of energy produced in atomic reactors, were found during the weekend in a monitoring well, storm drains and a concrete vault, all on plant property, said Tim Hanley, the plant's vice president. The public is not at risk because the leakage was contained to the middle of the plant's property, Hanley told the Joliet (Ill.) Herald News in a story published Monday. The escaped Tritium measured 3.2 million picocuries per liter of water, Hanley said. The state Environmental Protection Agency said it considers water safe if it contains no more than 20,000 picocuries per liter. Tritium is a suspected cancer-causing agent, the Herald reported. Tritium was not found in any of the plant's 71 monitoring wells prior to last weekend's leak, Hanley said.

???

 

[HerefordSire]

Jim, are you close to any of these Nuclear reactors?

Wisconsin Nuclear Highlights

Of the 31 States with nuclear capacity, Wisconsin ranks 22nd.

Wisconsin's first commercial reactor, Point Beach 1 is one of the oldest reactors still in service. It went into commercial service in December 1970 (one year after the two oldest reactors, Oyster Creek and Nine Mile Point 1).

The Kewaunee reactor and New York's R.E. Ginna reactor are equal in size (net capacity 498 MWe each). Of the Nation's 104 commercial reactors, only Nebraska's Fort Calhoun reactor (478 MWe) is smaller in capacity.

In August 2002, Platts Power Magazine rated Kewaunee first among the "Top 50 Nuclear Plants"for lowest O&M (Operations and Maintenance) Costs, and rated the Point Beach power plant first for efficiency.

Applications were submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for uprating the capacity of each of Wisconsin's three commercial reactors and all three applications were approved.

On November 29, 2002 the NRC approved an uprate of 21.5 Megawatts/electric for each of the Point Beach reactors (1.4 percent increase).

On July 7, 2003, an increase of 23 Megawatts/electric was approved for the Kewaunee reactor (also 1.4 percent).

Here is a leak into ground water from one of the reactors in your state in 2006....

http://www.nukewatch.com/quarterly/2006 ... e8horz.pdf

???

 

[chrisy]

Honestly what has Nuclear plants got to do with smoking, yes we all know the contents of the site is not a safe thing to inhale, but we do not go around and sit by the plants, but we have to sit near smokers as they walk among us. Stop trying to justify smoking, it is up to the individual as to whether they smoke or not, and those that don't are not in the wrong because they don't like it. The smoke, the terrible smell and the consequences. A lot of those that don't smoke have seen a loved one die a horrible death caused by smoke related illnesses, I'm one of them.

 

[HerefordSire]

HS....the simple answer to your question is NO......http://www.improvability.co.uk/toptips/makeup.html
scroll down a little and there is a piece on this Hoax that is going around.

Are you sure about that? The reason I ask, if makeup does cause breast cancer, should we triple the tax of cosmetics? Also, should we restrict contact of all women that wear cosmetics? How about women wearing cosmetics eating in restaurants? Should there be a cosmetic section and a non-cosmetic section?

Early this year the media reported that English researchers identified
parabens in samples of breast tumors. Parabens (alkyl esters of
p-hydroxybenzoic acid) are widely used as antimicrobial preservatives
in thousands of cosmetics, personal care products, pharmaceutical
products, and food. There are six commonly used forms (Methylparaben,
Ethylparaben, p-Propylparaben, Isobutylparaben, n-Butylparaben and
Benzylparaben) and it is estimated that they are used in at least
13,200 cosmetics products. According to the lead researcher of the
recent study, Philippa Darbre, an oncology expert at the university of
Reading, in Edinburgh, the chemical form of the parabens found in 18 of
the 20 tumors tested indicated that they originated from something
applied to the skin, the most likely candidates being deodorants,
antiperspirants, creams, or body sprays.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, accounting for
nearly one of every three cancers diagnosed in U.S. women. For 2003,
it is estimated that 211,300 new cases of invasive breast cancer were
diagnosed in women with an additional 55,700 cases of in situ breast
cancer. For many years there have been rumors that underarm deodorants
and antiperspirants used by millions of women, mainly in the West,
might increase the risk of breast cancer. But most researchers thought
this idea seemed too far-fetched, the product of paranoid female minds,
typically substituting rational scientific thinking with
unsophisticated, primitive beliefs. Enter the late nineties. From
1998 on, reports started appearing stating that parabens had
estrogenic-like activity in mice, in rats, and in human breast cancer
cells in the lab. Since most breast cancers respond to estrogen the
link between deodorants and breast cancer did not seem so outlandish
anymore. So, currently, questioning the safety of applying
hormone-mimicking compounds to an areas so close to the breast appears
to have gained some legitimacy. In addition, estrogen/progesterone
Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) was found to significantly increase
breast cancer risk making the paraben/cancer connection even more
plausible.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycar ... 090604.cfm

???

 

[SRBeef]

HS,

I will reply even though it will not affect your conclusions. No, neither I nor my father lived near a nuclear plant.

Why do oyu think there is a $100. charge if you smoke in a non-smoking motel room?? It isn't because of any nuclear plant. Over and out. Jim

 

[BeefmasterB]

Honestly what has Nuclear plants got to do with smoking, yes we all know the contents of the site is not a safe thing to inhale, but we do not go around and sit by the plants, but we have to sit near smokers as they walk among us. Stop trying to justify smoking, it is up to the individual as to whether they smoke or not, and those that don't are not in the wrong because they don't like it. The smoke, the terrible smell and the consequences. A lot of those that don't smoke have seen a loved one die a horrible death caused by smoke related illnesses, I'm one of them.

Can't argue with you, Chrisy! I smoke too and it's a nasty habit. Had quit for a long time and when my sense of smell came back, I found second hand smoke pretty irritating not to mention the smell lingering in my clothes. As to nuclear plants; no doubt that leakage can be harmful but it does not explain the tar that builds up in the lung tissue. Smoking cigarettes does explain it. Will take another stab at quitting, down the road.

 

[larryshoat]

Jim62...that is what I have been saying all along. The data proves that smoking does not cause cancer. Smoking does the opposite. It allows us to live longer. Read the negative replies I received. If you notice, almost every one of the negative replies are women which is why I started wondering if this was a woman thing.

Herf, what age should we encourage kids to start smoking to get the maximum health benefit? Is that what you recomend?

Larry

 

[HerefordSire]

Jim62...that is what I have been saying all along. The data proves that smoking does not cause cancer. Smoking does the opposite. It allows us to live longer. Read the negative replies I received. If you notice, almost every one of the negative replies are women which is why I started wondering if this was a woman thing.

Herf, what age should we encourage kids to start smoking to get the maximum health benefit? Is that what you recomend?

Larry

It is against the law for kids to smoke and likely to be against the law for adults to smoke. I do not recommend breaking any laws.

 

[larryshoat]

Jim62...that is what I have been saying all along. The data proves that smoking does not cause cancer. Smoking does the opposite. It allows us to live longer. Read the negative replies I received. If you notice, almost every one of the negative replies are women which is why I started wondering if this was a woman thing.

Herf, what age should we encourage kids to start smoking to get the maximum health benefit? Is that what you recomend?

Larry

It is against the law for kids to smoke and likely to be against the law for adults to smoke. I do not recommend breaking any laws.

I mean Ideally when should kids begin to smoke 4 maybe 5, I'm talking about if the government didn't interfere.

Larry

 

[HerefordSire]

I mean Ideally when should kids begin to smoke 4 maybe 5, I'm talking about if the government didn't interfere.

Larry

It would depend upon the what the parent or guardian of the child believed in.

 

[HerefordSire]

Cooincidence?

When Mme. Calment died at 122 in l997, the new longevity champ became 116-year-old Marie-Louise Meilleur, of Canada. Mme. Meilleur had chain-smoked all her adult life (as her grandson said, "She always had a cigarette dangling from her lips as she worked,"--AP, 8/15/97, reported in Miami Herald, p. 2A). She did give up smoking, however, when she was nearly 100.

The world's oldest man is (unless he has died since the last report I have, which is l997) Christian Mortensen, ll4 in l997,who has been a cigar smoker for most of his life--and still smokes them. [San Francisco Chronicle, "114 and Still Smoking," Peter Fimrite, 8/5/97, p.A13].

Britain's oldest man, George Cook, died at 108 in his sleep in September, l997. He "smoked heavily for 85 years before giving up tobacco at the age of 97," ("World Briefs," Houston Chronicle, 9/29/97).

The Scottish Daily Record (12/15/97) reported on Ivy Leighton, 100, who smoked 20 cigarettes a day for 84 years, but cut down somewhat after her 100th birthday. April claimed smoking was the key to her long life.

There are two men who claim to be the world's oldest living humans, but their birth dates cannot be certified. One is Ali Mohammed Hussein, who claimed to be 135, of Lebanon. He "smokes like a chimney," but does not drink alcohol [CNN World News, "Born in l862," Brent Sadler, 5/13/l997].

The title is also claimed by Narayan Chaudhari, a Nepalese man who says he is 141. However, his birth date also cannot be certified. He too is a heavy smoker and says the secret of his longevity is "raw tobacco and no alcohol." [Nando net, Agence France-Press, "Nepalese man claims to be 141, which would make him world's oldest", 2/12/98].

 

[chrisy]

HS>>>I can see you are one of those that has an answer for everything, and everything has an answer. :roll:

 

[HerefordSire]

The first portion below is commentary to a study shown further below. Notice the bold print.

February 6 - SMOKING CESSATION AND MORTALITY TRENDS AMONG 118,000 CALIFORNIANS, 1960-1997 - There is no proof that smoking causes cancer. And now hard evidence (on actual deaths -- not virtual ones) is beginning to emerge. This is a very interesting recent study by Clark Heath of the American Cancer Society. Note the statement in this abstract: "These results indicate there has been no important decline in either the absolute or relative death rates from all causes and lung cancer for cigarette smokers as a whole compared with never smokers in this large cohort, in spite of a substantial degree of smoking cessation." (emphasis added). If smoking causes cancer - especially lung cancer - and considering a reduction of smokers by over 40% since 1960 when the study began, why don't we see a proportional decrease in lung cancer rates today? Moreover, why does this study (published in 1999) still have to see the front page of newspapers and prime time television, while all the junk science against smoking gets continual coverage? And why hasn't the ACS promoted this study in the same way it promotes antismoking junk science?


School of Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1772, USA.

We assessed the impact of smoking cessation on subsequent death rates among a cohort of 51,343 men and 66,751 women in California enrolled in late 1959 in the original American Cancer Society (ACS) Cancer Prevention Study (CPS I) and followed for 38 years. We compared the age-adjusted death rate, expressed as deaths per 1,000 person-years, among all subjects who smoked cigarettes in 1959 but who had largely quit as of 1997 with the death rate among never smokers over a 38-year period. The all causes death rate for males decreased from 20.67 during 1960-1969 to 18.68 during 1960-1997 for smokers and decreased from 10.51 to 9.46 for never smokers. The lung cancer death rate for males increased from 1.558 to 1.728 for smokers and increased from 0.127 to 0.133 for never smokers. The all causes death rate for females increased from 9.54 to 10.14 for smokers and decreased from 6.95 to 6.44 for never smokers. The lung cancer death rate for females increased greatly from 0.208 to 0.806 for smokers and increased from 0.094 to 0.116 for never smokers. These results indicate there has been no important decline in either the absolute or relative death rates from all causes and lung cancer for cigarette smokers as a whole compared with never smokers in this large cohort, in spite of a substantial degree of smoking cessation. While cessation clearly reduces the mortality risk among long-term former smokers, the population impact of cessation appears to be less than currently believed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1046 ... t=Abstract

 

[larryshoat]

I mean Ideally when should kids begin to smoke 4 maybe 5, I'm talking about if the government didn't interfere.

Larry

It would depend upon the what the parent or guardian of the child believed in.

What would you recomend to those parents or guardians for a starting age, you know, so they can mke sure they're doing all that they can for their kids health.

Larry

 

[HerefordSire]

I mean Ideally when should kids begin to smoke 4 maybe 5, I'm talking about if the government didn't interfere.

Larry

It would depend upon the what the parent or guardian of the child believed in.

What would you recomend to those parents or guardians for a starting age, you know, so they can mke sure they're doing all that they can for their kids health.

Larry

I would recommend to the parent or guardian to study all the available information (and pray for wisdom) and beware of false prophets of an economic system in which we live in. Things, including information, are many times not what they seem. Usually, it takes hard work to uncover the truth. Most any information number can be skewed one way or another. Behind each side of a principal philosophy are billions of dollars at work. It will surely surprise you to understand where funds originate and for understanding economic motives. It is our duty as parents or guardians, to determine what the truth is and ignore the mass media and institutions.

In the next several posts, I will start providing more and more evidence. You should decide for yourself if the references are accurate and believable.

 

[grannysoo]

It will surely surprise you to understand where funds originate and for understanding economic motives.

Oh no! You can't do it that way. Certainly money is no motive for any of the pro-smoking or anti-smoking points of view....

Smoking is one of the biggest examples of double-speak by our government. From one side of their mouth, they are saying how bad that smoking is for you. From the other side of their mouth, they're talking about all the tax dollars that it generates.

Look at how much the tobacco tax has gone up in recent years. Government DOES NOT want for you to stop smoking, no matter what they may say. And, if you believe some of the studies that hs has presented, they actually may want for you to smoke in order to mask the sources of lung cancer.

I personally don't care if you do or don't smoke, that is a personal decision.

By the way, all of you with the ring in your back pocket from toting the snuff can, or the pack of chaw 'baccer on the dash of the truck.... you're next!

It's all about taxation and control. :dunce:

 

[backhoeboogie]

It's all about taxation and control. :dunce:

The truth hurts!