Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

On 3/2/2012 11:44 AM, JustWait wrote:
Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

Oh, wait a minute.. Let me answer for Plume:

"Oh, so now you want more second hand smoke, just poison your kids, and
puppies, WHAT ABOUT THE PUPPIES, and old people...?"

snerk

In article , says...

Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

Really? That's all you got out of it? Can you read?

Link #1's first few sentences:

Secondhand smoke is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It has
been associated with serious health problems in both children and
adults. Efforts to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke in Nebraska have
included programs to prevent tobacco use among young people and
campaigns for smoke-free workplaces and homes. Despite these
interventions, young people continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke
at an unacceptably high rate


Link #2's first few:

Every authoritative, peer-reviewed assessment of the scientific evidence
over the years has concluded that Secondhand smoke causes a lengthening
list of diseases.

The only dissent has come from Big Tobacco and the scientists and
organizations affiliated with it. Researchers supported by Big Tobacco
are eighty-eight times more likely than independent researchers to
conclude there is no evidence that Secondhand smoke is dangerous.

The most current knowledge first...

The first studies showing that Secondhand smoke causes respiratory
problems in children were published over thirty years ago. First
evidence that Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer was published in 1981.
Since then, the list of dangers has steadily grown. This page sums up
the major, independent, consensus statements produced by scientific
bodies since 1985, most recent first.

2006 US Surgeon General. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure
to Tobacco Smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency. Update of
the landmark 1986 Surgeon General's report. Emphasizes the effects of
secondhand smoke on the heart, particularly the fact that effects occur
within minutes to increase the risk of a heart attack. Confirms that
there is no economic effect of smokefree laws on the hospitality
industry, and concludes the ventilation systems cannot control
secondhand smoke. Full report

Effects Causally Associated with Secondhand Smoke
Lung cancer
Coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
Low Birth Weight
Lower respiratory illnesses in infants and children
Middle ear disease in children (including otitis media and chronic
middle ear infusion)
Respiratory symptoms in children (cough, phlegm, wheeze, and
breathlessness)
Asthma in children
Reduced development of lung function in children


Yep, keep telling yourself that second hand smoke is good for your
children.

On 3/2/2012 1:22 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

I wonder if smoking dope is as harmful to your health as smoking
cigarrettes?
--
O M G

In article om, 5@
5.com says...

On 3/2/2012 1:22 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

I wonder if smoking dope is as harmful to your health as smoking
cigarrettes?

I would guess so, if one was to smoke as much pot as a cigarette addict
smokes cigarettes. But why are you in such a tizzy about pot lately?

On 3/2/2012 2:01 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In raweb.com, 5@
5.com says...

On 3/2/2012 1:22 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

I wonder if smoking dope is as harmful to your health as smoking
cigarrettes?

I would guess so, if one was to smoke as much pot as a cigarette addict
smokes cigarettes. But why are you in such a tizzy about pot lately?

I see you are a member of the noiseless patient Spider organization. Is
that part of the anti cigarette pro pot movement?

--
O M G

In article m,
says...

On 3/2/2012 2:01 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In raweb.com, 5@
5.com says...

On 3/2/2012 1:22 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

I wonder if smoking dope is as harmful to your health as smoking
cigarrettes?

I would guess so, if one was to smoke as much pot as a cigarette addict
smokes cigarettes. But why are you in such a tizzy about pot lately?

I see you are a member of the noiseless patient Spider organization. Is
that part of the anti cigarette pro pot movement?

Where on earth do you get these crazy ideas in your head?

On 3/2/2012 2:59 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 3/2/2012 2:01 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In raweb.com, 5@
5.com says...

On 3/2/2012 1:22 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

I wonder if smoking dope is as harmful to your health as smoking
cigarrettes?

I would guess so, if one was to smoke as much pot as a cigarette addict
smokes cigarettes. But why are you in such a tizzy about pot lately?

I see you are a member of the noiseless patient Spider organization. Is
that part of the anti cigarette pro pot movement?

Where on earth do you get these crazy ideas in your head?


From your head(er). See your header information below.

Path:
news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! news.glorb.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: iBoaterer
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Read Plume's link....
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:59:36 -0500

*Organization: A noiseless patient Spider*

Lines: 26
Message-ID:
R
blah blah blah

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

Really? That's all you got out of it? Can you read?

Link #1's first few sentences:

Secondhand smoke is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It has
been associated with serious health problems in both children and
adults. Efforts to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke in Nebraska have
included programs to prevent tobacco use among young people and
campaigns for smoke-free workplaces and homes. Despite these
interventions, young people continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke
at an unacceptably high rate


Link #2's first few:

Every authoritative, peer-reviewed assessment of the scientific evidence
over the years has concluded that Secondhand smoke causes a lengthening
list of diseases.

The only dissent has come from Big Tobacco and the scientists and
organizations affiliated with it. Researchers supported by Big Tobacco
are eighty-eight times more likely than independent researchers to
conclude there is no evidence that Secondhand smoke is dangerous.

The most current knowledge first...

The first studies showing that Secondhand smoke causes respiratory
problems in children were published over thirty years ago. First
evidence that Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer was published in 1981.
Since then, the list of dangers has steadily grown. This page sums up
the major, independent, consensus statements produced by scientific
bodies since 1985, most recent first.

2006 US Surgeon General. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure
to Tobacco Smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency. Update of
the landmark 1986 Surgeon General's report. Emphasizes the effects of
secondhand smoke on the heart, particularly the fact that effects occur
within minutes to increase the risk of a heart attack. Confirms that
there is no economic effect of smokefree laws on the hospitality
industry, and concludes the ventilation systems cannot control
secondhand smoke. Full report

Effects Causally Associated with Secondhand Smoke
Lung cancer
Coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
Low Birth Weight
Lower respiratory illnesses in infants and children
Middle ear disease in children (including otitis media and chronic
middle ear infusion)
Respiratory symptoms in children (cough, phlegm, wheeze, and
breathlessness)
Asthma in children
Reduced development of lung function in children


Yep, keep telling yourself that second hand smoke is good for your
children.

Where is the data?

On 3/2/2012 7:41 PM, BAR wrote:



Yep, keep telling yourself that second hand smoke is good for your
children.

Where is the data?

More importantly, nobody ever said second hand smoke was good for
anybody... That's what sucks about dealing with Plume, he can't have a
reasonable debate without the bull****...