Mine is people driving poorly. The list of what driving poorly entails is fairly long, but suffice it to say I am frustrated with drivers every other day.

By far, the things that drive me the craziest come from people:

People who don't put their cell phones on vibrate when in public.
Corollary: The need for those same people to have obnoxious ring tones.

Narrow WalMart aisles and the wide people who fill them, oblivious to those behind them.

People who keep talking despite your not-so-polite hints for them to shut up.

People who stand too close to you when they talk.

Motorists who lay on the horn because they are too lazy to walk the 30 steps to knock on the door of the person they are picking up.

Work-out partners who don't wash their doboks.

Online trash-talkers. RL trash-talkers piss me off enough, but hiding behind online anonymity to avoid consequences is sophomoric.

Slow-moving motorists who straddle the line.

Commercials that are considerably louder than the television program they are in.

Comb overs. Being bald isn't nearly as bad as being bald but trying to hide it.

Non-educators deciding what and how schools should teach. You don't hire a carpenter to wire your furnace or plumb your house.

The person who created automated telemarketers. Dial zero to talk to a real person, then let them know what you think.

The person who created automated telemarketers. Dial zero to talk to a real person, then let them know what you think.

People who buy from those things. Frankly, if no one ever bought from them, they wouldn't exist. That means, there's some jackass somewhere, buying from these things, and therefore justifying their existance. To you sir, person whom buys from automated telemarketers, I say, **** you.

Ditto for people who get their viagra from Al of Nigeria's email marketing scheme.

Nice list by the way, I agree on most. I'll add in, I typically just don't like the people at Walmart. Not the employees, just the people who shop there are often, how do you say...white tea? Thats my codename for it.

I'll add in that I hate Long Island people. I don't know where that came from, but on the average its so true.

I typically just don't like the people at Walmart. Not the employees, just the people who shop there are often, how do you say...white tea? Thats my codename for it.

It's worth distinguishing between the people who shop at a WalMart because it's convenient and they don't care about their business practices, and the people who shop at WalMart because it's their only reasonable, affordable option. Some goods are available at similar prices elsewhere, but if people are dealing with time constraints (multiple jobs, children, etc.) or they don't own their own car, being able to go to one place and get everything you need is difficult to argue with. Almost no one competes well with WalMart strictly in terms of prices-- even Target is usually half a step up.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Its important to note, poverty != white tea. Sort of like living in Atlanta != redneck.

White tea exists at all income levels.

,

Yep. I tend to speak in abbreviations and codewords to avoid getting glared at when noting things to other people in public. Other favorites include CR, OTR, Lassie (don't think you'll get this one unless you've seen Porkies), 36'er (don't think you'll get this one unless you've seen Clerks, technically its 37 but whatever), etc etc etc.

I f***ing hate drama!

I don't understand these people that always seem to have some sort of problem in or with their life, mainly consisting of or involving someone else. Those people driving me crazy!! STOP! Just Stop It! Just stop all your stupid drama, stop being a giant queen, just stop it and live a peaceful life.

I don't get it. Its like they can't be happy unless something is wrong. Whats wrong with these people!?

"Then hunger proved more powerful than grief." - Count Ugolino and the Tower of Hunger

Frankly, it's disgusting.

Eshval's email
BlackMarquessa@gmail.com

Eshval's slightly off-center (unofficial) blog.
http://blackmarquessa.blogspot.com/
Carnivàle
http://cirquecarnivale.wordpress.com/

I regularly have meetings to discuss what will be discussed at the weekly meeting. Those are always fun.

And people who stop for pedestrians in the middle of the road. There's crosswalks for a reason. I'm trying to drive here.

People who don't brush there teeth. It's like, 30 seconds out of your day. Get in the habit. Cause that's just nasty.

Porn where they spend way too much time with an upclose of the dude's cock. That's not what we're wanting to see, don't you people know that?

People who take little stuff too personally. Life isn't that serious. Just let the small stuff go.

When I get the little skidmarks in my underwear, even though I KNOW I wiped it really well.

Microwave lasagna that burns on the outside but is still frozen in the middle. And we know I don't have 20 minutes to cook it in the oven.

People who act like the military isn't important, just because the president is an idiot. It ain't our fault. And you'd be in a helluva lot more trouble if we didn't exist at all. Show at least a little respect.

Women who won't have sex with me even though I know they really do want to, deep down.

*Edited to replace all the censored words. Damn, I'm a potty mouth.

even though I KNOW I wiped it really well

That was awesome!

yeah buddy, that made my day

"Then hunger proved more powerful than grief." - Count Ugolino and the Tower of Hunger

Probably doubles with many peoples, in no particular order:
People who feel they need to shout into their cell phones.
People who think England is the name for Great Britain/United Kingdom.
People who tell me they are Scottish because their Great Aunt's cousin owned a West Highland Terrier called Scottie.
F**kin cyclists that think red lights don't apply to them. I say a silent prayer each time I see this, that a mack truck is on its way.
Cigarette butts on the sidewalk (that's fag ends on the pavement for Yhorian, Leud, Graham and Abernyte)
People who don't move to the right on an escalator.
Embololalia: Like when, um people, who like have to like, say like and um stuff, like all the time and stuff when they like talk.
Negative advertising (Buy ours, because theirs sucks. Vote Me because he will tax you and he beats his wife.)
Last but not least - when Discworld or Threshold mud get a head of us on TMS - VOTE you sluggards!

>People who tell me they are Scottish because their Great
>Aunt's cousin owned a West Highland Terrier called Scottie.

How about this question: "So, are you Scotch?"

And I will add: The English constantly reliving 1966!!


-----Euan

because the "designers" didn't lay something out in the spec the way they wanted it. Then they make a snap judgement and design an equally poor (or worse!) solution the second time. Then they have to get THAT fixed by friday, so hack up something else. Then...it seriously goes on and on. It's not rocket science, kids.

Two-hour everyday teleconferences in which nothing gets done.

Laying off competent people to hire global resources, so that some manager somewhere can get a bonus to fund his pool.

People who look for walks in sunday league softball. You're here to hit. Pretend it's recess. Don't be a retard. Swing the bat.

People who don't use their blinker, pull right in front of you, then stop prematurely at a yellow light.

Road construction at 5:00PM on the most busiest street around. Cones are up. Signs are up. But nobody's there doing anything.

Those dudes who wear real tight girls jeans. I don't know, I guess all the kids are doing that these days.

People who think second hand smoke will kill them. Ridiculous. Quit being a little bitch. You live in one of the most otherwise polluted cities in the world.

The dude in the other office that has to clip his fingernails at his desk every other day.

Cell phone coverage. Why is the worst reception spot in the nation located in my living room?

That's it. I feel better.

F*ck error number 0x80040E05. What the hell does that mean anyway? DB_E_OBJECTOPEN doesn't tell me a lot about what's going on. Some might say it sounds like a lock, but that's not the situation, it actually had to do with an invalid key.

In fact, in general, Microsoft error codes are the devil. For a company that does its best to be programmer friendly, they love to make obscure error codes that take hours and hours to debug.

I'm biased though, I just got off a 30 hour shift repairing a very large Sharepoint farm that crashed and dealing with Rackspace whose backups took 22 of those hours to restore 8 databases (less than 2gb in total, mind you).

This seems typical of my experience

Moderator note: Please just link to outside sources. Don't upload material to us.

nt

I hate smoking with passion and seeing someone uncaringly expose others to the poisous smoke of his cigarette makes me angry.

Did you know some of them have diseases? I could catch pnemonia. Sick people shouldn't be allowed in public. Also, I could have an allergic reaction to someone's perfume/skin lotion/breath mint, so people shouldn't be allowed in public.

I'm guessing your is sarcastic, but if not your cell phone is killing you faster than the absolutely minimal amount of second hand smoke you might get even in a smoke filled bar. Deal with it.

>I'm guessing your is sarcastic, but if not your cell phone is
>killing you faster than the absolutely minimal amount of
>second hand smoke you might get even in a smoke filled bar.
>Deal with it.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Same with cigarettes.

I feel the same way about people smoking around me as I would feel about someone smearing themselves in dog crap and standing around me. It's not that I think I'm going to keel over dead, it's that it's disgusting and they're an a-hole for knowingly inflicting their habit on someone else.

I also hate the fact that smokers almost never pick up their butts and just litter them everywhere. They should be fined for that.

I hate fat people. I should not have to look at them as it makes me angry. They are inflicting their disgusting appears on me and should go away.

That's just silly. Vision and smell are totally different senses. You can't not smell something, you can easily not see something. Smell is a more visceral sensation. I could go on, but I hope you won't seriously try to stick with this absurd comparison.

A valid comparison is sound. Do you think that it's perfectly reasonable to have your cell-phone going off in a movie theatre? How about screaming in a library? I'm not saying it should be illegal to smoke in public, just that it's obnoxious. Just as it would be obnoxious to sing (badly) at the top of your lungs on a bus.

>>I'm guessing your is sarcastic, but if not your cell phone
>is
>>killing you faster than the absolutely minimal amount of
>>second hand smoke you might get even in a smoke filled bar.
>>Deal with it.
>
>Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Same with
>cigarettes.
>
>I feel the same way about people smoking around me as I would
>feel about someone smearing themselves in dog crap and
>standing around me. It's not that I think I'm going to keel
>over dead, it's that it's disgusting and they're an a-hole for
>knowingly inflicting their habit on someone else.

I'd rather smell the guy smeared with dog crap than stand in the smoker's smoke. At least the dog crap isn't poisonous and both smell equally vile(unless the dog crap isn't fresh, in which case the smoker smells worse).

>I also hate the fact that smokers almost never pick up their
>butts and just litter them everywhere. They should be fined
>for that.

If any littering should be fined, I agree. Those butts form the majority of thrown trash here in Finland and are too numerous for the people picking trash(note that the same people are also responsible of the gardening in the area, so they'd have better things to do than pick trash all day) to pick(so that they'd have to get broom, rake and snow shovel in order to clean them away with some efficiency. It's much more work than picking all the rest of the trash in the area).

Wow, you're ignorant. Walking past someone smoking *gasp* isn't going to kill you. Why not freak out about the worse cases of lung poisoning you encounter daily?

>Wow, you're ignorant. Walking past someone smoking *gasp*
>isn't going to kill you. Why not freak out about the worse
>cases of lung poisoning you encounter daily?

The point was standing in smokers smoke, not walking past someone smoking. I often switch position(the scenario is not walking past, it is either walking in the same direction at same speed or waiting for train in the platform) when someone starts smoking in a place where the smoke flies towards me. And it's dog crap we are comparing it with. The smell is approximately equally repulsive compared to the one of the smoker with less health hazard, providing that you don't go touch the dog crap.

To put it in perspective, sitting next to a person who has recently smoked is approximately equally repulsive to sitting next to a person who smells like dog crap. Sitting next to a person who is currently smoking is approximately equally repulsive to sitting next to a person who is currently regurgitating. It is assumed that there are no other smokers in the area.

I'm guessing your is sarcastic, but if not your cell phone is killing you faster than the absolutely minimal amount of second hand smoke you might get even in a smoke filled bar.

The American Lung Association gives this summary of the 25,000+ deaths the EPA and Surgeon General's reports attribute to secondhand smoke every year. The American Cancer Society gives comparable estimates. Also in agreement are the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control, American Medical Association, and a host of other organizations.

Please cite a source wherein cell phones remotely approach that level of danger, or kindly mark such claims as taken from the Tac Journal of Proctological Spelunking.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Tac Journal of Proctological Spelunking.

This made me laugh. Seriously.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html

I'm sure Fox news will probably be dismissed much the way you tried to imply my arguments about abortion held no value because they were "primarily religious" but from what I'm reading, the evidence seems quite inconclusive.

Most everything I can find that "supports" those numbers cites the EPA study which was declared by a judge to be essentially junk science. Much in the same way creationists can find data to support their conclusion, people can find data to support second hand smoking killing people.

Smoking has been villanized, so anything that says smoking or second hand smoke is harmful is immediately believed.

I don't feel the need to look for cell phone and cancer studies... I'll let time do its thing for that one.

However, I'll admit it is very difficult to find any data on second hand smoke that isn't from agencies that have agenda's one way or the other. There have been lots of studies and it seems like half of them say yes it does, and the other half say no it doesn't... Given that I personally wouldn't feel comfortable stating that it causes 25,000 deaths a year if I was a government agency, but then I'm not the government.

Here's a couple more articles... but I have no idea how reliable this guy is, but the fact that he hates second hand smoking gives him slightly more credibility than joe blogger.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000707.html

I don't feel the need to look for cell phone and cancer studies... I'll let time do its thing for that one.

Well, this happens to fall into my specialty.

No one has even proposed a viable mechanism for how weak electromagnetic fields could cause cancer. Radio-frequency photons absorbed by biological matter result in heating, if they're absorbed at all. It's how your microwave cooks food, except you microwave puts out orders of magnitude more power than your tiny-ass phone. One can calculate how much heating would be produced by this radiation, and it's what you expect: an amount you can't feel, just like you don't feel your head getting warmer when your cell phone turns on. In any event, if that level of RF photons caused cancer, disk jockeys would be buried under piles of tumors from working underneath 50,000+ watt broadcast towers.

It's why there isn't a link between cell phones and brain cancer, or any other health risk.

However, I'll admit it is very difficult to find any data on second hand smoke that isn't from agencies that have agenda's one way or the other. There have been lots of studies and it seems like half of them say yes it does, and the other half say no it doesn't.

Sorry, but the ACS/WHO/CDC/AMA/EPA does carry a lot more weight than blogs and Fox News editorialists. I won't apologize for being a source snob there. Blame my training.

The summary of the primary literature Adams cites claims that 67 of 106 articles find a link between secondhand smoke and health risks in humans (cancer, heart disease, etc.), which he misinterprets as "a tie". As a scientist, however, that's a scary percentage to me, because in a double-blind controlled study, it's very possible to miss a link (imperfect data collection (surveys, etc.) skews things towards non-correlation) than for random data to line up and correlate at a 95+% c.l. (Put another way, in a study of that sort, false negatives will always outweigh false positives.) Environmental factors are a damned hard link to prove because you can't control the environment of humans in a scientifically acceptable manner. 67/106 is way past my scary radar.

You're right that an agenda is in play, but consider what it is: Tobacco companies spend a ton of money claiming there is no link-- the profitability of their industry depends on people believing (as they did before the 1960's or so) that their product is a safe drug. They fund a lot of studies, just as they funded studies which "showed" that smoking didn't cause lung cancer.

What's the counter-agenda? Who benefits? Doctors don't, so why is the WHO/etc. involved? Why would they spend money to demonize a non-threat? Why would they take the opposite unanimous stand on cell phones? (All presently agree cell phones are a non-risk.) Personal distaste isn't a sufficent motive to explain a large-scale conspiracy. Where are the dollars?

One thing that is absolutely unquestioned is that secondhand smoke can cause cancer in animal studies. It's harder to get data on humans, since we can't cage them and measure their air 24/7, but there's no reason to suspect that we're special there. We know even casual smokers have an increased risk of lung cancer from the smoke exiting the other end of the cigarette. Why would the unfiltered end be safe?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>I don't feel the need to look for cell phone and cancer
>studies... I'll let time do its thing for that one.
>
>Well, this happens to fall into my specialty.
>
>No one has even proposed a viable mechanism for how weak
>electromagnetic fields could cause cancer. Radio-frequency
>photons absorbed by biological matter result in heating, if
>they're absorbed at all. It's how your microwave cooks food,
>except you microwave puts out orders of magnitude more power
>than your tiny-ass phone. One can calculate how much heating
>would be produced by this radiation, and it's what you expect:
>an amount you can't feel, just like you don't feel your head
>getting warmer when your cell phone turns on. In any event,
>if that level of RF photons caused cancer, disk jockeys would
>be buried under piles of tumors from working underneath
>50,000+ watt broadcast towers.
>
>It's why there isn't a link between cell phones and brain
>cancer, or any other health risk.


I remember I read an article on this several years ago, and it claimed that while their study could not prove that people who use cell phones are more likely to have a tumor, it did show that if a person used a cell phone AND he/she had a tumor, then the tumor was more likely to be in the right half of the brain if the person used to hold the cell phone in the right hand as he/she was talking, and in the left half in the person held the cell phone in the left hand. Have you heard about such correlation?

PS: I don't recall now if the study explored if lefties/righties are generally more likely to have tumor in different parts of the brain - but I'd think that should be known anyway.

it was later dissed because the participants already knew on which side of the head the tumor was when they were asked which hand they used to talk in the phone.

To be fair however, if I catch lung cancer the first thing someone asks me is if I smoke or if I know someone who does. If I say yes, smoking gave me lung cancer. I mean, they're a bit quick to drop the axe when it comes to that.

Other studies have suggested that if you are a full-time smoker for many years, you can quit and have lungs that are undiscernable from a non-smoker 3 years later, with similiar drop in likelihood of getting cancer and smoking related illnesses.

That to me, suggests, that casual contact with smoke isn't something that you should freak out about. Your body is capable of removing tar from your lungs, otherwise you'd have black lungs if you were so much as a boy scout leader standing over too many campfires.

To be fair however, if I catch lung cancer the first thing someone asks me is if I smoke or if I know someone who does. If I say yes, smoking gave me lung cancer. I mean, they're a bit quick to drop the axe when it comes to that.

Are you seriously debating the link between smoking and lung cancer?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

No. I'm not debating there's a link. I'm debating the notion that anyone whose ever come in contact with a smoker who gets lung cancer got it from that chance encounter with a smoker.

Cigarettes aren't the only cause of lung cancer and heart disease. The fact that they instantly draw that conclusion, specifically in regards to second-hand smoke, is a sham.

The stat I heard is that it takes about 5 years for your body to recover from each year you smoked. So if you smoke for 10 years, you're probably going to die before you get rid of all that tar.

Bunk.

Here's one common chart Source:

20 minutes:
Blood pressure drops to normal
Pulse rate drops to normal
Heart rate drops to normal
Circulation has already improved
Body temperature of hands and feet increase to normal
8 hours:

Cigarette breath disappears
Carbon monoxide blood level drops to normal
Oxygen blood level increases to normal
Is already feeling better and it's only been 8 hours
24 hours:

Chances of heart attack begin to decrease
48 hours:

Nerve endings in nose and mouth begin to regrow
Ability to smell and taste are enhanced
Mucus begins to clear from the lungs
2 weeks to 3 months:

Circulation improves
Walking becomes easier
Lung function increases up to as much as 30%
1 month to 9 months:

Coughing, sinus congestion, fatigue, and shortness of breath all decrease
Lung cilia have regrown, increasing the ability to "clean" lungs and reducing the likelihood of infection
Overall energy increases
1 year:

Excess risk of coronary heart disease is half that of a smoker's
5 years:

Lung cancer death rate decreases by half
10 years:

Lung cancer death rate is now equivalent to that of a non-smoker
Pre-cancerous cells are replaced by healthy cells
Risk of other cancers (mouth, throat, bladder, etc) decreases
15 years:

You are at now no more at risk of heart disease than if you had never smoked!

-------------------

I can't find an article about the research which I saw on the news, and googling is giving me 20 different answers, so I'll just base it on this and say "at worst, 10 years" and leave it at that. Either way, its sure as #### not 5 years for every year...that's utter tripe.

That link said they got their info from the American Cancer Society. Here is a link to the ACS page that has that same chart. It isn't 5 years for every 1 year, but it definitely isn't 10 years either:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_Tobacco_and_Health.asp

After 5: Stroke risk is reduced to that of a nonsmoker. (US Surgeon General's Report, 1990, p.79)

After 10 years: The lung cancer death rate is about half that of a continuing smoker's. The risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas decreases. (US Surgeon General's Report, 1990, pp.110, 147, 152, 155, 159, 172)

After 15 years: The risk of coronary heart disease is that of a nonsmoker's. (US Surgeon General's Report, 1990, p.79)

It’s important to note that the extent to which these risks decrease depends on how much the person smoked, the age the person started smoking, and the amount of inhalation.

Second-hand smoke is bad if you are in a poorly ventilated enclosed area (homes, restaurants with bad filtration, etc) but not so much once you get into open public places. You standing next to me on the street when I'm smoking a cigarette is not going to #### to you. You get the same amount of carcinogens from working on a highway and inhaling exhaust fumes.

> No one has even proposed a viable mechanism for how weak
> lectromagnetic fields could cause cancer.

There are some people doing research on just that. They are, presumably, proposing viable mechanisms.

e.g.

http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/people/core/lai/lai.html

who wrote:

Lai, H. Neurological effects of microwave irradiation. In: Advances in Electro-magnetic Fields in Living Systems (Vol. 1), J.C. Lin (ed.), Plenum Press, New York, 1994.



-----------------------------

> The summary of the primary literature Adams
> cites claims that 67 of 106 articles find a
> link between secondhand smoke and health risks
> in humans (cancer, heart disease, etc.),
> which he misinterprets as "a tie".

His misinterpretation is actually a really painful abuse of statistics. A 95% confidence interval is an attempt to achieve a five percent false positive. Instead, he says "Given the statistical nature of these studies, this split in results is precisely what one would expect if no true link existed.". It's precisely what one would expect if you flipped a coin, I guess. Maybe he thinks studies are like weighted coin flips or something.

Meh.

How much junk do you think you inhale while you're driving around, stuck in traffic?

How much do you think you inhale when you're out camping by an open fire?

How much concrete do you inhale when you're walking past a guy who is jackhammering the road?

How much do you inhale when you're spraypainting something, or cleaning your house?

Now how much do you think you inhale casually walking past someone who is smoking on a street corner?

Frankly, those organizations have an axe to grind.

How much junk do you think you inhale while you're driving around, stuck in traffic?

A fair amount of carbon monoxide, which reversibly binds to various oxygen-binding proteins, but below a threshold the off rate clears it out of your system soon enough. That experience is harmless long-term, though it could trigger asthma/etc. and generally isn't pleasureable. A fair amount of incinerated material that was fairly pure to begin with, burnt at a high temperature, and passed through a catalytic converter. Some NOx and SOx, which may trigger allergies or do environmental harm, but aren't cancer threats. Some particulate matter, which your lungs do clear efficiently.

How much do you think you inhale when you're out camping by an open fire?

Leafy green matter in the fire? Probably not good. I don't camp, though. Charcoal? See above-- primarily carbon monoxide and particulates.

Burnt meat or veggies? Low doses of potentially bad stuff. I err on the side of rare for flavor reasons, but it means I'm taking more chances with food poisoning and less with that.

How much do you inhale when you're spraypainting something, or cleaning your house?

If I'm spraypainting, very little, because I'm wearing a disposable mask. If I'm cleaning my house, I'm primarily inhaling detergent/surfactant aerosols and solvents (ammonia, etc.) that don't scare me. Household cleaners have to pass a reasonably tight standard of carcinogenicity to get approved, particularly because they're expected to be used in areas with children.

Now how much do you think you inhale casually walking past someone who is smoking on a street corner?

A low dose of incompletely burned natural product, relatively high in chemicals I don't want anywhere near my lungs, because they've been proven to cause cancer in low doses. Being outdoors mitigates that dosage considerably, so it doesn't bother me much. Indoors? Different story. I wouldn't run my barbecue or start a campfire indoors either.

Smoke isn't smoke isn't smoke.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>How much junk do you think you inhale while you're driving
>around, stuck in traffic?
>
>A fair amount of carbon monoxide, which reversibly binds to
>various oxygen-binding proteins, but below a threshold the off
>rate clears it out of your system soon enough. That
>experience is harmless long-term, though it could trigger
>asthma/etc. and generally isn't pleasureable. A fair amount
>of incinerated material that was fairly pure to begin with,
>burnt at a high temperature, and passed through a catalytic
>converter. Some NOx and SOx, which may trigger allergies or
>do environmental harm, but aren't cancer threats. Some
>particulate matter, which your lungs do clear efficiently.

Um, you forgot this one :

"Oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust gas may react with PAHs to form highly carcinogenic nitro-PAHs."

Link

>How much do you think you inhale when you're out camping by
>an open fire?
>
>Leafy green matter in the fire? Probably not good. I don't
>camp, though. Charcoal? See above-- primarily carbon
>monoxide and particulates.
>
>Burnt meat or veggies? Low doses of potentially bad stuff. I
>err on the side of rare for flavor reasons, but it means I'm
>taking more chances with food poisoning and less with that.

High concentrations of carbon, some amounts of PAH. I didn't feel like shelling out $30 for the article, but if you feel like it, by all means, let us know what it says. Frankly, it does deposit the same black stuff in your lungs that everyone freaks out about, if you inhaled enough of it.

>How much do you inhale when you're spraypainting something,
>or cleaning your house?
>
>If I'm spraypainting, very little, because I'm wearing a
>disposable mask. If I'm cleaning my house, I'm primarily
>inhaling detergent/surfactant aerosols and solvents (ammonia,
>etc.) that don't scare me. Household cleaners have to pass a
>reasonably tight standard of carcinogenicity to get approved,
>particularly because they're expected to be used in areas with
>children.

You're also not going into dust and other common household pollutants. I forgot to mention the interior of your car...the dashboard often breaks down and you inhale small amounts of plastics which would render a workplace inhospitable, yet some people sit for 3 hours a day in their vehicle, or more.

>
>Now how much do you think you inhale casually walking past
>someone who is smoking on a street corner?
>
>A low dose of incompletely burned natural product, relatively
>high in chemicals I don't want anywhere near my lungs, because
>they've been proven to cause cancer in low doses. Being
>outdoors mitigates that dosage considerably, so it doesn't
>bother me much. Indoors? Different story. I wouldn't run my
>barbecue or start a campfire indoors either.
>
>Smoke isn't smoke isn't smoke.

Heh, well, I can see you've drawn your conclusion (ignorantly, but since when does that stop anyone?). So, I won't bother arguing with you, but its worth noting that a lot of the stuff you say here is crap. Sucking in exhaust fumes, for one, isn't harmless. The stuff you say about sitting next to someone indoors who is smoking giving you cancer is garbage as well. If you want to just make stuff up, by all means, but don't do it under the pretext of science.

>valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Heh, well, I can see you've drawn your conclusion (ignorantly, but since when does that stop anyone?)

You're comparing apples and oranges throughout, which often happens when attempt science by Google. It's easy to show that some level of carcinogenic something exists in just about anything, including coffee and peanuts. (Saccharin was banned following "It causes cancer!" hysteria of the sort you're perpetuating, but in realistic doses it's less dangerous than either of those.)

I take it you didn't read past the intro of the article from the Annals of Occupational Hygiene, but they're discussing the kind of doses important to people working with large numbers of diesel machines in facilities with "impeded natural ventilation", and they draw comparisons to bus garages, etc. The paper isn't even about carcinogenicity, but let's say my highway drive is somehow as bad as the inside of a bus garage.

They're talking about the effects of being exposed to about 10^-8 g/m^3 of total PAH content during the workday in those kinds of places. By comparison, a single cigarette releases about 3 micrograms of just two proven-beyond-slightest-doubt, potent PAH carcinogens (N'-nitrosonornicotine + (4-methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone) just in the sidestream smoke. (We'll assume the smoker is puffing away vigorously, and not letting it burn in the ashtray, thus absorbing most of the damage with his lungs.) Burning one cigarette that way turns 300 cubic meters of air (a 30'x30' room, 10' high, probably much bigger than any reasonable indoor room) into that level of danger. And all of that generously assumes that all the PAH content of the diesel soot is cancer-causing (it's not), and only those two components of cigarette smoke are present (there's 60+).

Why? Because engines run much hotter, and their input fuel is fairly homogeneous. You don't get a lot of PAHs out because there weren't many in the refined fuel that went in, and most of what went in got oxidized thoroughly anyway. Burning a plant at low temperatures is much different.

So me driving to work? Not even close. Outdoor air dilutes quickly. I'm not there 8 hours a day like the guys working in the bus garage. (Who are allowed to work there all day, because those dosages don't exceed British law.) Even on a bad day of traffic, it's not like the inside of a bus garage. Most vehicles don't burn diesel, for one thing. And I still had to make crazy assumptions to get in that dosage ballpark, neglecting everything else in this paragraph.

Most importantly, it's a lot more reasonable to ask someone not to smoke, than it is to ask them not to drive or clean their house.

Heh, well, I can see you've drawn your conclusion (ignorantly, but since when does that stop anyone?). So, I won't bother arguing with you, but its worth noting that a lot of the stuff you say here is crap. Sucking in exhaust fumes, for one, isn't harmless. The stuff you say about sitting next to someone indoors who is smoking giving you cancer is garbage as well. If you want to just make stuff up, by all means, but don't do it under the pretext of science.

Back at ya. This probably isn't the type of topic that you want to pick a fight with Dr. Valg over, though. I wouldn't lecture you on the finer points of Windows applications or anything.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I was going to get into a long, drawn out thing about how you missed the point of my post but I won't.

It doesn't take a scientist to note that the population of waiters/waitresses in this country aren't dying by the thousands of lung cancer. Disagree all you want, its just not happening. Standing in a smokey room is not a significant threat to your long term health.

Precisely my point was that the dosage and substance does matter (why I get in my car, but don't tolerate prolonged secondhand smoke), which is why I pointed out why the reference you mentioned supports my argument that being in your car isn't a big deal.

It doesn't take a scientist to note that the population of waiters/waitresses in this country aren't dying by the thousands of lung cancer. Disagree all you want, its just not happening.

Actually, it does take science to properly assess the question. That's why we pay scientists. Anyone can just wave their arms in the air and claim they know the truth, handed down from the mountaintop. It's not my opinion that causes thousands of excess deaths (total, not restaurant staff) to secondhand smoke every year, it's the smoke. I gave useful references above to that effect, from established, credible sources.

When every major medical organization (US and international) says one thing, and some dude on an Intarwebs forum says another, I'm sticking with the doctors. Sorry.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

You're stating that someone working in a garage year long is not as bad off as someone who sits in a room with a smoker. How are you equating dosages there that render the latter more exposure than the former? Unless you're in a career that continually forces you to be exposed to cigarette smoke, we're talking fleeting exposures here and there. Hardly a risk. Even as stands, where are the stats that say people in heavier smoking parts of the country, who are non-smokers, have higher risks for lung cancer? There'd be a measurable trend, if what you're saying is true. Where are the stats that say parts of the states like NC, which until recently allowed smoking in their malls and average stores have higher rates of lung cancer in non-smokers? You can't point to a study because nothing confirms that. Its a lot of talk, but there's nothing to back it up.

As far as scientists coming down from the mountainttop or whatever you're trying to get across there, I'm fine with science. Saying, "Hey, you ever see a guy smoke a cigarette? Really? Ok, that's what gave you cancer."...is junk science. Reading charts to assess causes after the fact is junk science. And if there's a first hand study that says that fleeting exposures to cigarette smoke pose a significant risk...by all mean...post it. It just don't exist, so it'd be sorta tough.

You'll note that, in reference to saccarin which you pointed out they had wrong, it *WAS* the US government who said something. They issued a warning. They were wrong. So, no, I don't expect you to take the word of me over a group of scientists. But I do not expect you to equally turn a blind eye to reality as it exists in the world in favor of what some jackass with an agenda says.

You are far and above more likely to die the next time you drive to work in a car accident than you are from random exposures to cigarette smoke. That's a statistical fact, not some agenda driven ####. There's a solid distinction one can draw between the two.

I'll be straight with you, man.

I don't even know if you smoke, but your posts in this whole thread come off as "I'm a smoker, and the research or opinions of medicine and science be damned, any evidence which suggests I could be hurting people is junk."

Thats ridiculous.

~3000 people in the US are attributed, according to Valg's own statistics, to getting lung cancer from second hand smoke.

Out of 280 million people.

Think of that and reread his post, and tell me it doesn't come across as a serious over-exaggeration?

Just for giggles :

You're 5x more likely to be murdered.
You're 7x more likely to die to the flu.
You're 14x more likely to die in a car crash.

~500,000 people die of various forms of cancer every year (note - in other words, you're 165x more likely to die of something other than lung cancer as a non-smoker affected by second hand smoke...assuming their stats are legit).

~910,000 people die of heart attack every year (note - in other words, 97% of people who have heart attacks and die are not non-smoking second-hand victims).

The point I'm driving at? I'm not saying second hand smoke is harmless. I'm saying its nothing to wet your pants about.

My problem is more with the tone and assumptions (IE, get that smoke away from me or it'll kill me), its purely ignorant. You have a LOT more things to worry about. Second hand smoke is not the boogie-man, come to axe murder you in your sleep, that people make it out to be. Relatively speaking, Ronald McDonald is more 'Jason-esque' than second hand smoking. Additionally, you'll note the type of people that "frequently expose themselves to second hand smoke in bars" aren't the types of people that would shock me if they had a heart attack.

You're 5x more likely to be murdered.

Than lung cancer from secondhand smoke, sure. The excess deaths from heart disease raise the total to about 25,000 per year, which is more than homicide. In other words, secondhand smoke is more likely to kill me than homicide. That strikes me as vaguely important.

Additionally, you'll note the type of people that "frequently expose themselves to second hand smoke in bars" aren't the types of people that would shock me if they had a heart attack.

You're right, which is why journals like JAMA require you to control for existing risk factors like obesity or alcoholism before they let you claim a causative link. Medical doctors are pretty smart people.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Eh, I'm done arguing with you. I made my point. You're not getting it, I'm ok with that.

I can't recall a time either you or Valg have ever conceded your position in an argument.

I've conceded before. Valg just wants to argue stats (badly...see my post below) while he ignores the entire core of my argument. A lifetime of second-hand smoke notches you up from 1% likelihood of lung cancer, to 1.19%. Its not worth freaking out about. Thats my entire point. You can agree, or disagree.

"Its not worth freaking out about. "

Sure, since it's no one you personally know and love. But I bet if it was your child/wife/family-member, you'd not discount it so easily. My belief has always been "If the smoke bothers you, move". If it's your house/place of business/abode/etc. you make the smoker move. Problem solved.

I do agree with you that the anti-smoking rhetoric is pretty ridiculous. Either ban smoking altogether (Heh, yeah right), or let people do things without being hassled.

I guess I just chafe at the increasingly PC world we are living in. If I sit down during a day, I can figure out 10 things that affect me negatively. There needn't be laws and multiple political action commitees to solve everything that offends the sensitive. Certainly the government doesn't need to be restricting my freedoms simply to appease the sensitive. Especially when my tax dollars are helping pay for it! I'd rather see a lot more effort put into educating the inner cities then anti-smoking commercials/studies etc. No #### if you inhale a hot substance into your lungs repeatedly, its a bad idea. Duh.

To continue this rant. WTF is the government doing with this huge tobacco windfall? Paying lawyers. So this big issue over smoking comes up, tobacco companies increase their prices, the government spends more money to argue it, the tobacco companies lay people off, but now second-hand smoke deaths are less-likely to happen? #### the other stats, I want to hear how many people have NOT died since these laws changed. Thats some data you can convince me with.

It's like the old marijuana is a gateway drug because 85% of people who did cocaine started with weed. Well by that logic, cigarettes are a gateway drug to heroin, because about 99.9% of heroin addicts smoked cigarettes first.

Bah, I am done. Government ineffeciency angers me.

Yeah, well, as far as the loved one things goes, the whole argument started on the basis of "walking past me smoking is nothing to freak out about" and "sitting next to me while I'm smoking is nothing to freak out about", whereupon Valg went into how incredibly carcinogenic cigarette smoke is.

For all that incredible carcinogenic goodness, assuming when they say "less than 1%" means "near 1%" as opposed to something far lower, its still only an increased likelihood, if you really spent your entire life surrounded by second hand smoke, of 0.19%.

That, to me, is negligable. I'm not saying I go around blowing smoke in babie's faces, but honestly the people who make the most 'clang' about this topic :

1) Don't work in bars.
2) Aren't consistantly surrounded by smoke.

They're people like Valg who may encounter it "out in the wild", at the occassional bar, or in some other, relatively rare setting.

Those people have a statistically insignificant increase in chance of getting lung cancer. So to make a huge post about how incredibly carcinogenic second-hand smoke is, is misleading and as I initially said, ignorant.

The whole anti-smoke community states all their statistics in relatives (ie, 2x more likely, 10x more likely, etc) because the hard, cold stats don't raise any alarms. If they came out and said, "Hey...listen...you're increasing your chance of getting lung cancer by 0.000238% every time you go to a bar" people would laugh at them.

I'm all for calling a spade a spade. I don't disillusion myself into thinking smoking isn't bad for me. But, at the same time, I'm not going to listen to the "spin" game. You want to argue its bad for you, state what you're arguing, that you're afraid of a minute fraction of a % increase. These people make it out to be a huge threat to your life when in reality its statistically insignificant.

I am just curious, you seem pretty knowledgeable and also opinionated about this stuff. Do you believe smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke anywhere but outside, or in their homes? Where does it end then? If I am offended by my neighbor's barbecue grill, because he grills tripe on it and it stinks a cloud into my yard? I am not saying I agree/disagree, but like Amaranthe I think smokers are really demonized.

And for the record I don't smoke cigarettes.

My degrees are in chemistry and biochemistry. I've been reading scientific journals regularly for career-related reasons since about 1994 or so, and I've authored or co-authored a small stack of my own papers.

Most of my postdoctoral experience is dealing with aerosolized weaponry. Part of my job involves building detectors, and when you build a detector you need to know something about what the permissible dosage is for the agent of interest. So I read a lot of (publically-available) medical literature, and provide recommendations to other people in the U.S. military's research wing.

You also have to know your baselines and how much they vary. How much pollen is in the air? Soot? Dirt? Etc. Given all of that, what does your "danger" warning look like, given that a weapon alert is very costly and alarming? I've spoken with the EPA and other sources on this topic, attended several conferences on the topic, and I frequently represent my group within the military on topics related to biochemistry. I'm pretty well-read on indoor air as well-- the people who run airports, stadiums, train stations, and the like would like to have reliable detectors for dangerous substances as well, and indoor air is a wholly different beast in terms of composition.

Do you believe smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke anywhere but outside, or in their homes? Where does it end then? If I am offended by my neighbor's barbecue grill, because he grills tripe on it and it stinks a cloud into my yard? I am not saying I agree/disagree, but like Amaranthe I think smokers are really demonized.

I've already stated elsewhere in this thread that I'm fine with people smoking outdoors or in private. The former for dosage reasons (outdoor air dilutes the smoke rapidly), and the latter because I have no problem with smokers (or anyone... I'm in favor of the right to die as well) making hazardous decisions for themselves. Secondhand smoke in public places (my office, etc.) makes it my problem, though.

As for "where does it end?", there's any number of examples where the government decides on acceptable and unacceptable levels of pollutants. As long as they use similar methodologies across the board (the 25000+ annual deaths attributed to secondhand smoke certainly qualifies), there isn't any case for "demonizing".

I agree there's considerable social demonizing, but that's not science's job to police.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>As for "where does it end?", there's any number of examples
>where the government decides on acceptable and unacceptable
>levels of pollutants. As long as they use similar
>methodologies across the board (the 25000+ annual deaths
>attributed to secondhand smoke certainly qualifies), there
>isn't any case for "demonizing".

The only area I think is "iffy" is when governments use a "public use" argument to ban smoking in private establishments. For instance, all bars. What's the issue with a bar that permits smoking? If non-smokers don't want to inhale second-hand smoke then don't patronize that bar. If there's a market for "smokeless" bars then some enterprising businessman will open one. If not, too bad.

Unfortunately, markets aren't always flexible enough to achieve this sort of result. You get situations where most non-smokers are "okay" with inhaling second-hand smoke on an occasional basis, but smokers are vehemently against any establishment becoming smoke-free. So bar owners maximize their profit by allowing smoking. The number of non-smokers whose business they lose by allowing smoking is smaller than the number of smokers whose business they lose by disallowing it.

>Second hand smoke is
>not the boogie-man, come to axe murder you in your sleep, that
>people make it out to be.

No; however, I do think it is a serious health risk relative to the ease of preventing/limiting the risk.

No; however, I do think it is a serious health risk relative to the ease of preventing/limiting the risk.

We're not talking about legalization of smoking in restaurants/bars. We're talking about the frenzy people whip themselves into over it.

From Dur's post :

I hate smoking with passion and seeing someone uncaringly expose others to the poisous smoke of his cigarette makes me angry.

Aside from the spelling error, the guy is working himself into a frenzy over nothing. He doesn't like the smell of smoke, is what it boils down to, and uses its supposed health affect (which is negligable in the context Dur is referring to it in), to give himself free reign to act like a cock-knocker about it. He at least later copped out to that much. Unfortunately, that attitude is not uncommon.

Specifically, those attitudes are what I'm relevantly referring to. None of this revolves around blowing smoke in babies faces or working behind a smokey bar counter for 40 years...it has to do with people being self-righteous assholes and using their improper grasp of science to justify it. That type of attitude simply is not justified by what the scientific facts are about it.

That doesn't count as thousands of excess deaths? If so, then you are saying your opinion doesn't coincide with the numbers you originally cited as evidence.

Some questions for you (better at research than me):

How many people in the US die of lung cancer each year?

What are the estimates for people dieing of lung cancer from being a smoker?

From being exposed to secondhand smoke (25,000+)?

Do those numbers add up? Make statistical sense?

Don't bother using reason. Reason only works with people who are intelligent enough to spot the logic behind the manufactured hysteria about second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke hysteria exists for one reason and one reason only, to exist as a basis to alienate smokers and drum up support for more taxes.

If the government cared about smoking/non-smoking/second hand smoke, they'd just outlaw it. Instead, they'd rather villainize it.

If you ever ask any of these people to produce anything remotely backing up half the #### they say, they can't. Since, half of it is junk science, the other half is just off the cuff bs.

Some answers I found on wikipedia:

>That doesn't count as thousands of excess deaths? If so,
>then you are saying your opinion doesn't coincide with the
>numbers you originally cited as evidence.
>
>Some questions for you (better at research than me):
>
>How many people in the US die of lung cancer each year?

Didn't find US, but it looked like ~100,000 per year in "developed countries" with 80+% being attributed to smoking. So fully 1 quarter of all people worldwide dying from lung cancer caused by smoking is from secondhand smoke?

>What are the estimates for people dieing of lung cancer from
>being a smoker?

90+ percent of lung cancer in men is attributed to smoking... Seems like a pretty high percentage for something like cancer...

>From being exposed to secondhand smoke (25,000+)?
>
>Do those numbers add up? Make statistical sense?

Nah, the post he posted had 3600 listed as due to lung cancer. So, despite the *highly carcinogenic value of chance tobacco exposures*, in a country of 280 million where over a quarter are smokers, miraculously only 3600 people get lung cancer. Amazing. Non-smokers beware!

The rest were heart attacks and strokes attributed to second hand smoking. IE, "did you know a smoker? Ah, yeah, ok thats why you had a heart attack. Not because you're an obsese, lazy person with incredibly high blood pressure...no...its because you knew a smoker."

Its junk science, plain and simple.

miraculously only 3600 people get lung cancer. Amazing. Non-smokers beware!

I guess you laugh at people who get cervical cancer too. (Similar number of deaths per year.)

The rest were heart attacks and strokes attributed to second hand smoking. IE, "did you know a smoker? Ah, yeah, ok thats why you had a heart attack. Not because you're an obsese, lazy person with incredibly high blood pressure...no...its because you knew a smoker."
Its junk science, plain and simple.

"Junk Science" doesn't make it into JAMA, the British Medical Journal, Lancet, etc. I know you're a slef-ceritfied medical expert and everything, but I supplied some references in respose to Tac above.

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=43&topic_id=309&mesg_id=451&page=

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

20% of a ridiculously small number. You're still missing the point.

20% of a ridiculously small number. You're still missing the point.

25,000 excess deaths per year is not a small number. (Sourced elsewhere in thread.) That's nearly twice as many deaths as HIV causes in the United States, for perspective. If you consider that a "small number", I recommend sharing heroin needles and shagging discount prostitutes.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

If you want to argue a point, try to argue what I'm arguing.

Your link states a 19% increase (high value), of lung cancer by having a career that continually exposes you to second-hand smoke. Your base likelihood, which is going up 19%, starts off at less than 1%, as of March of this year. What's 19% of 1%? 1.19%? AKA, an incredibly small number.

These are per the American Cancer Society, but the more or less line up with WHO estimates.

How many people in the US die of lung cancer each year?

160,000 in 2004, per the American Cancer Society.

What are the estimates for people dieing of lung cancer from being a smoker?

87% of those lung cancer deaths are attributed to smoking.

From being exposed to secondhand smoke (25,000+)?

Roughly 3,000 lung cancer deaths. At least 20,000-25,000 deaths from heart disease and other maladies.

Do those numbers add up? Make statistical sense?

There's nothing inconsistent about them, if that's your question.

If you don't trust the American government to provide you information about tobacco, the following are from the World Health Organization. I've included citations to the primary sources, in case any more accusations of "hysteria" arise. FWIW, all of these references are from top-shelf medical journals. "Junk science" would get eaten alive by their review process.

Non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace have a 16 to 19% increased risk of developing lung cancer. Source: Fontham et al. JAMA 1994; 271(22): 1752–1959.

It has also been shown that non-smokers exposed to SHS have a 25 to 35% increased risk of suffering acute coronary diseases. Source: Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. British Medical Journal 1997, 315:973–80.

Living with a smoker increases your risk of lung cancer (20% in women and 30% in men). Source: Hackshaw AK, Law MR, Wald NJ. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. British Medical Journal 1997, 315: 980–8.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I present to you "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General"

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/

Here is what it says about lung cancer in the conclusions section:

"Lung Cancer
1. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.

2. The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure"

If you want the scientific, nitty gritty details about how they came to that conclusion, see chapter 7, which includes data from studies conducted in the USA, Canada, Europe and Asia from 1984 onward.

And that's just lung cancer. The report has sections on numerous other ill-effects of second-hand smoke.

I was hesitant to cite that report directly, since the Surgeon General is a political appointee, and there's already people in this thread that call JAMA "junk science". But yeah, that's a pretty broad review, respresenting the collective views of a huge number of medical doctors.

Heh. Chapter 7 alone has 9 pages of references. I'm sure it's all "junk science", just like those gravity and evolution heretics!

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

From a purely scientific perspective, how are they making the estimations on heart disease?

Additionally, whats the likelihood of getting lung cancer if you don't live with smokers, aren't a waiter/frequently exposed to second hand smoke/don't smoke yourself?

I'm just curious if there's any science behind this at all, because frankly the numbers look like bunk to me. You're telling me with the vast amount of people in this country daily exposed to second hand smoke there's a whopping 3400 lung cancer deaths? That's incredibly low...And somehow, they're attributing heart disease to second hand smoke in excess of 20,000 people? On what basis? On the basis of living with a smoker?

I'm just curious if there's any science behind this at all, because frankly the numbers look like bunk to me.

"Bunk" that's convinced every major medical organization, US and otherwise, that secondhand smoke is a problem. You're making an extraordinary claim. Please provide extraordinary evidence. There is little burden of proof on me, given that I'm making a claim that is supported with such unanimity by organizations with such clout.

You're telling me with the vast amount of people in this country daily exposed to second hand smoke there's a whopping 3400 lung cancer deaths? That's incredibly low...

Not really. Cervical cancer kills about 3,900 people per year in the US, yet the vaccine for HPV was (correctly) heralded as huge news earlier this year, and will likely become mandatory for young women (starting in Michigan, but likely to go on nationwide), barring unexpected success from the resistance from the religious right. 3,400 deaths above baseline, from a preventable cause, is plenty enough to involve the government.

The 20,000+ figure includes all deaths above baseline (heart disease, etc.), and there's only about 10-15 things that kill more than 20,000 people per year. (For comparison, America sees 18,000 homicides and 14,000 HIV deaths per year.) And very few of them are easily classified as preventable deaths.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

So, in short, you don't know their methodologies or how the studies were conducted.

Whose making leaps of faith now?

The 1994 JAMA study focused in part on a study of thousands of women from five metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Ga, Houston, Tex, Los Angeles, Calif, New Orleans, La, and the San Francisco Bay Area, Calif.), none of whom were smokers. One large group was composed of women who had been diagnosed with lung cancer. The other was composed of women who had never been diagnosed with lung cancer.

The doctors interviewed the women and their spouses from both groups to determine how many smokers were in the household, how many packs per week they smoked at whatever stages of their life, etc. They then crunch a whole pile of numbers per standard methodologies, and determined that living with an average smoker gave a 30% excess risk of lung cancer. They also observed the expected dose-response-- women who lived with heavy smokers (or lived with smokers for longer) had a higher excess risk than those who lived with light smokers (or lived with smokers for shorter).

The article was never retracted or amended, but it is cited an awful lot. That tells me that the journal's editorial board stands by their conclusions, and a lot of other medical doctors consider it an important study.

Honestly, I can do this for any of the studies. Yes, I trust in sources like the British Medical Journal, but it's because I read journals, and I've written a pile of articles myself. I know what the review process is like, what the standards are for publication, and the tremendous scrutiny placed upon you, particularly in a major journal. That's not a "leap of faith". It's based on years of professional experience.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I'm asking about heart attacks, which are a lot harder to nail down to any specific source.

-Added - You really are an artful dodger. Great at answering questions I didn't ask, but ignoring any core point I'm making. Impressive.

Hey, I agree with elements of what you're saying, but your arguments are so ass-backwards it's actually difficult to side with you.

I don't like smoking, and I am in favor of many of the restrictions on smoking here in California in public venues, but I also think it's taken too far, both socially and legally. Smokers are treated like leperous pariahs, which I don't think is right either. And certainly one who owns a bar - an establishment which exists for the purpose of patrons enjoying vices - should allow smoking if they choose. I find the argument that waitresses might get cancer from second-hand smoke is erroneous.. many jobs have occupational hazards and you accept them as part of the job, or you don't accept the job.

For you to claim that second-hand smoke is harmless just takes away the ability for some people to take your position seriously. It is well-verified that it is harmful. My argument would instead be that there are calculated risks we take in life all the time, and smoking or being around people who smoke is one of those risks. It's certainly less than the risk of driving in a car, something we all do every day, yet we wouldn't dream of doing anything to restrict automobile useage, no matter how trivial the reason to drive.

What I always find ironic is that a lot of these people have absolutely no desire to restrict alcohol in terms of consumption or advertising in the same way they restrict cigarette usage. For those who think there is no "secondhand alcohol" - think again. The number of alcohol-related instances of violence, drunk-driving, random accidents, etc. amounts to a much greater threat to public health than second hand smoke. We have no major problem with beer advertisements, intoxication in bars, etc. Now, I'm not saying there necessarily *should* be such restrictions, but I am saying it's definitely a double-standard. I certainly find loud, stinking-of-alcohol drunk people far more obnoxious than smokers, but my solution is to simply do not go to drinking establishments or events where people are drinking to intoxication. Similarly I think smokers should be allowed to do their thing in private bars and venues in which the proprieter has chosen to make it permissible.

It certainly depends on the dosages I'd imagine. Those people being incredibly dramatic as they walk past you on a street corner are being just that...dramatic. Someone who works a couple years in a bar, likewise, will be just fine. Now, maybe if you lived during your developing (childhood) years in a heavy smoking environment you'd have a point, or if you worked at a bar for 50 years. Frankly, even then, you have a chance and still a relatively small one. I'd wager your likelihood of heart disease in a similiar situation is probably far more significant.

It isn't that its harmless. Its that there's a large amount of manufactured hysteria with it.

>It certainly depends on the dosages I'd imagine. Those people
>being incredibly dramatic as they walk past you on a street
>corner are being just that...dramatic.

Smokers by and large (there are some who are considerate, of course) just don't care about the effect they have on others. They litter the ground with trash, put off a noxious stench and rarely show any sign that they recognize the posbbility that there's something wrong with inflicting their habit on other people. They think that because they love the smell of burning tobacco that therefore anyone who is bothered by it is just being dramatic.

No, passing someone on the street who is smoking is not going to kill me. But it's extremely unpleasant, and I shouldn't have to suffer for someone else's idiotic habit. I'm horrible at singing and playing the violin, though I enjoy doing those things. But I wouldn't go down to the street corner and practice, because that would be a completely obnoxious thing to do. If I did that, and then threw a bunch of trash on the sidewalk for good measure, then I'd be just as bad as your average smoker.

Edit to add something more meaningful :

I don't like people who litter butts. I think its trashy. I think there's a lot of people who are trashy.

There's plenty of things that people do that annoys me. That's life. Don't ever presume yourself so important that you are "above being annoyed by the common peasants about you". Its attitudes like the ones you're displaying in your post which may very well be part of why people don't care about your comfort level.

Honestly, if you can't handle it, don't walk around. Get a car. If you're going to cry like a little girl with a skinned knee next time you walk over a sewer grate, by all means, get your mom to drive you about.

>There's plenty of things that people do that annoys me. That's
>life. Don't ever presume yourself so important that you are
>"above being annoyed by the common peasants about you".

This thread is about pet peeves. I'm not saying it should be illegal to smoke in public, I'm just saying that it's really obnoxious. It means you're knowingly bothering other people. At the very least, that's a very selfish way to act. Yeah, life involves a certain amount of irritation. I am expressing irritation at the callous behavior of smokers.

Would you not feel the same? Would you find it aggravating if there was always a crowd of people shrieking horribly outside the restaraunts you go to? Would you not think that the people doing the shrieking are a bunch of jerks? Sure, they have a right to stand there shrieking if they want to, but that doesn't change the fact that it's amazingly inconsiderate.

Again, it's not that I am above being annoyed by others. It's just that I happen to think that knowingly bothering people in public requires a pretty asinine mindset.

Have you never been to an Applebee's on a Saturday night?

That happens reguarly. No, it shouldn't be illegal merely because it inconveniences my delicate tastes. I don't like children in movie theatres either, I'm not in favor of outlawing it.

You're problem is you view it as people "actively bothering you". You have to realize that in a public society you need to give people a certain amount of space and respect that, when you're in the public domain, you don't control the rules.

>You're problem is you view it as people "actively bothering
>you". You have to realize that in a public society you need to
>give people a certain amount of space and respect that, when
>you're in the public domain, you don't control the rules.

The fact that other people do other irritating things is irrelevant. My argument is only that public smoking is real jerk move because it constitutes a willful disregard for others. According to your logic, I should take the displeasure that results from others smoking and use that fact to justify acting like a jerk myself.

None of this has anything to do with making smoking illegal. That decision should be based only on public health data.

How is my lighting a cigarette "a blatant disregard for others" any more than :

A) Talking on a cell phone in public.
B) Walking my dog (some people absolutely loathe dogs).
C) Listening to my headset too loud.
D) Talking to my friends too loudly.
E) Walking too slowly.
F) Whatever miriad of other things someone else is doing that might annoy you.

I'm not saying you should act like a jerk. I'm saying you should cut people slack, because believe it or not it has nothing to do with you. They're trying to enjoy themselves, just as you're trying to enjoy yourselves, and while in public you may be forced into situations where someone is doing something you don't like, bear in mind there are times when you do something they won't like.

I hate to say it, but we don't smoke just to be spiteful towards you.

>How is my lighting a cigarette "a blatant disregard for
>others" any more than :
>
>A) Talking on a cell phone in public.

If they're talking at a normal level it will just blend in to the general noise. The sound will travel less far and be less noticeable than cigarette smoke. Even if they're yelling, in any remotely crowded location the sound won't travel very far or be that distinct from the background unless you're stuck with the guy. On the other hand, yelling into the phone on the bus is a bit rude and maybe you should wait.

>B) Walking my dog (some people absolutely loathe dogs).

If the dog is well-behaved and clean then there's no impact on other people other than a visual distaste. You should not walk a poorly behavior dog in a busy place.

>C) Listening to my headset too loud.

A headset that's too loud isn't all that loud. It can be annoying though, so maybe be just a bit considerate of that. A closer analogy to cigarette smoke is blasting music out of a portable stereo, which would be unreasonable.

>D) Talking to my friends too loudly.

Well, by definitin "too" loudly is too loudly. I don't think I've ever encountered people just talking too loudly with their friends, so I'm not sure how to.

>E) Walking too slowly.

Unless you're with a bunch of people forming a complete barrier, the effort required to step around you is quite minimal. Also, this irritation is purely psychological, there's no sense in being annoyed by this unless they're really going out of their way to be an ass about it.

>F) Whatever miriad of other things someone else is doing that
>might annoy you.

Sue me for thinking that people should be courteous in public.

>I hate to say it, but we don't smoke just to be spiteful
>towards you.

Have I said anythin of the kind? I've just said that it shows a disregard for others. Not a malicious intent. Just a willingness to ignore the fact that you're significantly bothering other people because it's convienient for you.

I hate cigarette smoke because of the smell, but I respect the right of people to smoke, so I (usually) don't get all bent out of shape about it.

My pet peeve about it is people who smoke in restaurants (thankfully, smoking indoors has been outlawed in California, so we only have this as a problem when dining outdoors). I always thought smoking dulled the taste buds; I can't imagine why you would take the time and spend the money to go to a nice restaurant if you're going to end up not really tasting the cusine? Maybe that's a mistaken impression; anyway, I can't stand it when I go out to eat and the table next to us lights up four smokes when we're midway through the appetizer. That just sucks.

I hate bikers that don't obey the rules, and I hate drivers that don't share the road. I bike to work with my wife every day, and we put up with an amazing amount of crappy drivers despite only biking in a residential area and on a Naval base (where the speed limit is 35 mph). I've had people yell at me, roar around me in the opposite traffic lane, pull out in front of me, etc. Haven't been in an accident yet, but I suppose it's only a matter of time.

Vandalism really bothers me for some reason. My old neighborhood in Maryland periodically gets 'mailboxed' (kids drive around in a minivan and smack mailboxes with baseball bats) and I just don't get it. There's no challenge, no possible thrill that I can see (thrill of maybe getting caught in a rural area at 4AM? Not likely.) and you end up pissing off a bunch of anonymous people. Why? Makes no sense to me.

People who listen to really loud talk radio in the next cubicle. Without headphones.

The expectation that I should tip a barista at Starbucks for doing their freakin' job and taking my order. Tipping in general annoys the hell out of me.

When you've worked your way up to third in a long line at a store, and they open up another checkout lane, and the dude right behind you darts over to the new line and checks out ahead of you. Makes me want to cockpunch someone.

Kastellyn the Devourer of Magic, Lord of Legends

Poor Driving takes on a whole new level when your out bicycling. I've only been hit by a car once this year. The number of times that I've been passed going up hill with another car on coming is too numerous to count. Amazingly enough it tends to be SUV drivers that are the worst. On the plus side, all my cycling has made me realize I shouldn't be driving a car, I'm a bad driver.

>Poor Driving takes on a whole new level when your out
>bicycling. I've only been hit by a car once this year. The
>number of times that I've been passed going up hill with
>another car on coming is too numerous to count. Amazingly
>enough it tends to be SUV drivers that are the worst. On the
>plus side, all my cycling has made me realize I shouldn't be
>driving a car, I'm a bad driver.

I used to be a cyclist as well, and really only ever had one bad accident (a car pulled out right in front of me, I slammed right into the driver side door, flew across the hood and landed in a heap in front of the car). The thing however that annoys the #### out of me, is cyclists who want the best of both worlds. Drive in traffic with cars, until there is a red light, then wind between all the cars to get to the front of the line, then take their sweet time getting up to speed. If you want to be on the road, follow the rules of the road, otherwise, get your ass on the sidewalk.

I realize this is perfectly acceptable behavior down in Arizona Bay, but it is quite illegal in most other states, including mine.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Usta be, your always going to be a cyclist, it's kind of like herpes, it never goes away. Yeah, mine was on the morning commute, coming off the bike trail both of us were asleep, no major injuries though. I agree with you on those who don't follow the rules of the road, it just give us cyclist a bad name and doesn't help anybody. Double it up with the fact that I live in a college town and none of the 18 year olds know the rules of the road, and it gets to be just plain awful, but atleast they are out riding there bikes I guess.

>Usta be, your always going to be a cyclist, it's kind of like
>herpes, it never goes away.

Yeah...I still ride at the gym a couple times a week, I really need to buy a new bike and do some street riding again.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Poor design. Be it in a clock radio, word processing software, or automobile. 95% of what's sold these days is designed like crap.

Second: people who park their big-ass SUVs in "comptact only" spaces. Also, people who drive slow in the left lane. And people who get into the exit lane, speed up, then jump back onto the freeway just to leapfrog 5-10 cars.

I'll keep it brief, since, frankly I get easily annoyed.

Basically, here's my thoughts on bad driving, in a nutshell.

Any time you do something risky or dangerous in order to possibly shave a minute or two off the trip, is bad driving. I'll add, any time you negligently ignore a facet of driving (like using your blinker to change lanes on a crowded highway, or fiddling with your radio on a winding road), is likewise poor driving. Lets face it, sure you can change lanes 830 times to get 3 car lengths ahead...but do you realize I'm going to wind up behind you at the light anyway? See, pointless idiocy bothers me...add that its being done from behind the wheel of a 2 ton machine? Well, you do the math. I'll add in people who ride three inches off the bumper of the car in front of them, because we all know the world would end in a firey cataclysm if someone merged in front of them. I don't even want to go into the morons in SUV's who do 90 in the snow (do you realize 4 wheel drive doesn't help you stop?). I'm a terrible person, because I secretly hope to see them wrecked up the road.

Additionally, on my list of pet peeves is people make a fuss when they walk by you as you are smoking a cigarette. I might note, if you've never been out here in NYC, on any given day you can walk by a construction site and be bombarded with a cloud of concrete dust...or walk past a falafel or whatever stand and inhale enough smoke to equate to a full pack. ... And yet people will wave their hand and hiss if they walk past you while you are smoking, no matter how courteous you are about it. See, the hard part of it for me to stomach is not only are they pompous assholes, but, they're ignorant pompous assholes.

Heh. When it comes to driving, I'm mostly pissed off by people who drive too slowly. And more commonly since I moved down to southern sweden, people that can't ####ing drive in the winter - every time some snow falls, by god people are crawling ahead in like 20 mph. And still half the iddiots manage to skid off the road anyway. ####ers. And people who don't turn down their lights when you meet them should be garroted.

Aside from bad driving though.

clerks with bad work routines - on a local burger chain they'll give you the soda and fries.. then keep you waiting, so once you get the damn burger the rest is just yucky. or just slow clerks in general. damn 'em.

Plateau shoes on males.. thank god nobody wears them anymore, but still some people do and i just want to beat them to death with a tire iron. make the world a more beautiful place. there's usually some fashion trend that pisses me off, this spring girls / women would be walking around in shorts when it was like +10C outside, shorts and ####ing stockings underneath. Oh, and males wearing makeup. Wtf?

People who whine about negative discrimination but still want to enforce types of positive discimination by law.. hate 'em. In general, i hate politicians because they won't stop trying to regulate #### that are none of their business. I hate everything that begins with "you may not".

That microsoft paper clip. grr. It's evil. It also causes my civ IV warlords install to fail i'm sure.

Ethan hawke movies. They're all loathsome.

People that are anal with safety and security of all sorts and who thinks the government's most important job is to max out the average lifespan. For ####s sake, zero traffic casualties isn't a realistic vision you tards.

####ing script kiddies that got me banned from dalnet.

Shakira. She's filthy, but still turns me on and i've got hips don't lie stuck on my mind.



/end rant.

I don't know, I can see some people driving 20mph. My car is a large sedan, 8 cylinder, rear-wheel-drive, and when I first got it, it had the stock tires that the car was sold with. Even with the trunk filled up with sand bags, I'd 360 on a snow-covered road if I so much as tapped the gas too hard. Luckily I never hit anything.

I finally shelled out the money for tires appropriate to poor weather conditions, but I can understand how some people might have to take it very slowly in the snow.

Sidenote - re: Shakira. I happened to see her outside of MSG last week, I guess she was having a concert there or something and her bus was outside and she was talking to a crowd. Honestly...she's very nice looking, but they work wonders with her in her videos. Not even close to as good as I thought initially.