HELP!

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

fhb2532

Preferred Member
Feb 22, 2010
2,079
0
Nanny strikes again! I was just notified that my senior apt. building is going SMOKE FREE. Does anyone have data to refute the secondhand smoke and the ventilation won't help studies that they use.
Frank

 

lordofthepiperings

Preferred Member
May 3, 2010
6,319
21
Las Vegas, NV
Only thing I've heard of is a couple of Ivy league universities studies that found people who smoked tobacco pipes out lived the average non-pipe smoking person by a few years. Main cause of death of average non-pipe smoker was heart attack due to stress. The relaxing and calming state pipe smoking creates added on a few extra years on average. Haven't read anything about second hand smoke, but I'd venture to say that since I haven't heard much of strictly pipe smokers getting any form of cancer the people around us probably wouldn't get any form of cancer either.

 

docgarr

Member
Jan 25, 2010
142
0
Unfortunately it's common sense. Like me, you are old enough to remember that 60% of baby boom parents smoked, about three packs a day: in the house, in the car, outside and everywhere else you could think of. Our generation should be dying in droves of respiratory illnesses. Yet, life expectancy continues to increase, despite our parents' tobacco habits and the second-hand smoke they exposed us to.

 

collin

Preferred Member
Oct 29, 2010
883
0
Oklahoma
Best of luck to you Frank, it's so sad to hear that.
Unfortunately I would imagine that even if you could present them with a briefcase full of the most accurate statistics you could find, they still wouldn't listen,.........they don't want the truth, they just want to pat themselves on the back for being so thoughtful and caring so much for all of the tenants.

 

nemrod

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2011
338
0
Sweden
This post brings up the exaggerated dangers of second-hand smoking: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/06/physicians-for-smoke-free-canada.html
I've also read "studies" that have shown that pipe smokers (who don't inhale and smoke in moderation) outlive non-smokers. Here's a link: http://www.meerschaumstore.com/health.htm
edit: might add that I agree with the others - they will most likely just ignore anything you present. It's become "common sense" that smoking is lethal in any form and no matter how wrong that is it's hard to make people change their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, at least as long as "authoritative people" (even though they have no basis) stand by their false claims.

 

docgarr

Member
Jan 25, 2010
142
0
The Beale piece is interesting. The focus is on inhaling versus non-inhaling pipe smokers. From my experience, pipe smokers who inhale were often former cigarette smokers.
I do research on pipe and cigar smoking and health. My most recent research using a sample of 25,000 adults from the 2008 National Survey of Drug Use and Health conducted by the US government shows that pipe and cigar smokers who are neither current nor former cigarette smokers have significantly higher self-rated health (highly correlated with actual physical health) than non-smokers, former cigarette smokers and current cigarette smokers. If you would like to see a graph of the results click here. Note this research not only looks at smoking but drinking as well.

 

cortezattic

Preferred Member
Nov 19, 2009
14,412
197
Chicago, IL
Tommy's right. It sounds like their minds are already made up, and they're not about to let the facts get in the way.

I really like the reasoning of Doc Garr's earlier post -- straightforward and self evident. 'Nuff said.

 

docgarr

Member
Jan 25, 2010
142
0
If the smoking problem was treated scientifically, the EPA would set limits to safe exposure as they would with any other hazardous substance. Therefore, having an exhaust system that could reduce exposure within the safe limits could be used by homes, bar and restaurants and other places if they so chose. Instead tobacco smoke is treated with "zero tolerance" and no exhaust system could ever meet safe limits.

 

loneredtree

Preferred Member
May 27, 2011
513
1
Agree with Doc. but, here is the best site that I have seen. http://www.davehitt.com/facts/ It takes some study but in honor of WNTD I just read it again :)

 

jimbo

Member
Jan 7, 2010
275
0
Greg Watchman of the EPA is quoted: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
What about OSHA? "In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS."
Read it yourself:
http://63.234.227.130/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
Also, the World Health Organization and the British Medical Journal in a study covering 39 years stated: "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full

 

marmal4de

Preferred Member
Feb 20, 2011
2,320
0
Richmond, BC
Get a Lampe Berger and put a towel under the door, and tell anyone that bothers you to kindly file all complaints to dev/null.

 

docgarr

Member
Jan 25, 2010
142
0
Thanks Jimbo for the BMJ article that supports my common sense approach. It's hard to dispute the authors' findings.