- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs"
News Article Comments : Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs"
- Thread is open
- View Article
95 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 9 of 10
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Robert Feal-Martinez 23/03/2007 10:39:54 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" Looks that way John, according to the news on reclassification, ironically according to this researcg document Alcohol is at Number 5 and smoking at number 9. But it seems that the media is changing the Daily Mail article yesterday has quite a number of comments and previously these would have been ant smokers, but there is not one. That is a positive move forward in our desire to get the truth out there. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444029&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments This post replies to John Gillman > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
| Ken Nason 23/03/2007 11:09:30 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" John, in the propoganda, nicotine is described as addictive and harmful and if I am not wrong as a "poison" when the anti smoking brigade get going. Then it is praised for it's medicinal powers in weaning off addiction. So how can it be not ok to smoke but ok as a cure. Could it be the harm is only in the dose? Something antis have never been able to admit about all these "poisons" in SHS. Some could describe morphine as an addictive poison but others would describe it as a beneficial pain killer. Again the answer is in the dose. I am a life long non smoker and have breathed in other peoples smoke wilst working in pubs for the last 40 years. Why am I not addicted to cigarettes? Why do I not wake up with a smokers cough and craving a ciggie. Simple, I have not received a big enough dose to either addict me or overwhelm my bodies defences. I might have smoky clothes but hey! what a small price to pay for freedom of choice.
Ken Nason Does this not show how second hand smoke is ineffectual in its detrement to third parties? This post replies to John Gillman > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
John Gillman 23/03/2007 11:24:15 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" Robert I agree with, certainly most of that, I have smoked for 30 years i would like to give up, I don't think the ban will help me do that any more than sticking "plasters" all over my body will. I'm thinking now as this debate progresses, most posters can see that the ban is ill thought and will cause more problems for business, losses, cost ect and social, dispersal orders??????. This post replies to Ken Nason > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
| J Macrae 23/03/2007 11:25:44 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" Good morning John. This post replies to John Gillman > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
| John Gillman 23/03/2007 11:27:06 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" Good morning JM. This post replies to J Macrae > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
| J Macrae 23/03/2007 11:30:58 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" Beaupere. This may help. Is increased exposure to the possible cause associated with an increased response i.e. an increased likelihood of an effect? It is important to understand the distinction and link between exposure and dose. Exposure is usually quantified as a product of duration and intensity such as airborne concentration of a relevant inhalable agent. Dose is a measure of energy, mass or number of infective particles as the case may be that is actively taken up by the human body. This post replies to Ken Nason > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
| J Macrae 23/03/2007 11:44:04 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" Beaupere. The demonstration of an exposure-response relationship provided that it is not the result of confounding has two important implications:- 1. It is good evidence of a true casual relationship between exposure to a particular agent and a health effect. 2. It may permit a measure of risk of a particular health effect to be related to a given exposure and it may even suggest levels of exposure to that casual agent below which its specific health effect is a most unlikely or even impossible consequence. Perhaps, you might consider examples of exposure response relationships. How many can you think of? This post replies to J Macrae > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
| Ken Nason 23/03/2007 11:51:05 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" JM exactly so regardless of the long list of macabre sounding chemicals quoted most of which are present in ineffectual quantities exposure to them once would be harmless. But no one on the anti side will enumerate at which point consumption by a human being of these "elements"would be actually dangerous to that human being. They "infer" that any exposure is lethal which is taken up by the zealots and paraded in propoganda akin to my granny making sure all the plugs were in at night because she tought the electricity would leak out and kill her. A result of misunderstanding we would all agree but just as frightening to her but totally wrong. It is all a matter of degree.
Ken Nason This post replies to J Macrae > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
| J Macrae 23/03/2007 12:55:26 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" Beaupere. Exposure response relationships. Here's one I made earlier:- The longer the duration of exposure to noise, and the greater its intensity (Loud), the greater the likelihood of subsequent deafness among the listeners. There must be others! This post replies to Ken Nason > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
| Ken Nason 23/03/2007 13:38:10 |
RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" JM, you can therefore increase the time of exposure with a reduction in intensity until you can effectively listen to the noise for the whole of your life without there being any likelyhood of suffering deafness. It is the balance of this relationship that has to be found to have levels of relative hazzard ascetained.
Ken Nason This post replies to J Macrae > RE: Smoking ban - "exclude bingo and clubs" |
|
