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
-
-
Subscribe
------------------
------------------
-----------------
Pipes Magazine » General Pipe Smoking Discussion
HELP!
(12 posts)-
Posted 11 months ago #
-
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.I find myself sitting idly on the line dividing past and future,
as if I could kill time without injuring eternity. -- ThoreauPosted 11 months ago # -
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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
There is a charm about the forbidden that makes it unspeakably desirable. Mark Twain
“Very few people are focusing on the potential damage this ill-conceived and hastily assembled homage to the ability of bureaucrats to conceive of all manner of problems where problems don't exist then apply solutions to those problems that only create new problems without solving the original problems at all will bring to many sectors.Posted 11 months ago # -
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."
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.
In a society that has destroyed all adventure, the only adventure left is to destroy that society.
{o,o}
|)__)Posted 11 months ago # -
Thanks Jimbo for the BMJ article that supports my common sense approach. It's hard to dispute the authors' findings.
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
Back To Top | Back to Forum Home Page
Members Online Now
juni, chispa, crpntr1, laozhishu, dukdalf
| Home
| My Page
| Forums
| Events | Pipe Babes | Pipe
Listings |
Pipe & Tobacco Reviews |
Pipe Collecting | Pipe
Videos |
This site, PipesMagazine.com, is not in any way affiliated with Pipes and Tobaccos Magazine.
We are an online magazine & community and do not publish a print version.
| Pipe Manufacturer & Retailer Spotlight | Pipe News | Pipe of the Week | Pipe Smoking Thoughts | Put that in Your Pipe |
Wine | About
Us | Contact
Us | Links
| Privacy
Policy | Terms &
Conditions | Advertising
| Site Map |
| Join the Forum |
| Getting Published on PipesMagazine.com |
All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 2009 - 2012 Right Click Media, LLCThis site, PipesMagazine.com, is not in any way affiliated with Pipes and Tobaccos Magazine.
We are an online magazine & community and do not publish a print version.
We use the SafeSurf Rating System to signify that PipesMagazine.com is for adults only
