Re: NAR Board of Trustees

I'm sorry John, but you and I have fundamentally differing opinions on the purpose of government as well as personal accountability. You believe that the government has an obligation to protect the masses from the individual and I believe the opposite. Read the Constitution and decide for yourself whose belief is more in sync with our Founding Father's vision of government. I'll give you a hint. There are NO group rights in the Bill of Rights. ;-) I also believe that people make choices and should live with the consequences of those choices. Or are you claiming that the woman didn't know that cigarette smoke could be harmful to her health despite over 40 years of that message being drilled into all of our heads?

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Did it ever occur to you that lots of people smoke because they *like* to? Would that be a "positive benefit" using your rather twisted definition? When I smoked Chris, I loved the hell out of it. I

Now, applying your logic, why should I as a "clean air" mountain biker have to be "exposed" to you, and your friends freakin' carcinogen laced, unburnt hydrocarbon saturated emissions when you're out banging around the woods in your SUV's? Huh?

YOU are having fun at MY expense.

tah

I couldn't resist:

European norms limit the allowed concentration of cyanide in drinking water to 0.05 mg/L, while the EPA has established that the maximum level is not to exceed 0.2 mg/L.

The reason that I posted this is because you have consistently made blanket statements regarding "safe" levels. To you, it's either safe or unsafe. The world is full of gray areas. At low levels, many toxic substances are not only safe, but necessary. Without looking at dosages, you can't say that something is 100% unsafe. Ralph Nader wrote a book many years ago entitled "Unsafe at Any Speed". It was a lambasting of the Corvair, which proved to be full of BS, but what struck me most about the book was the title's totally false assertion. All risk should be evaluated in its proper context. When it comes to chemicals, that's dosages. Nickel salts are carcinogenic when inhaled, but minute amounts of nickel are beneficial to life. Iron is necessary for the production of hemoglobin and the transportation of oxygen, but kids die every year from taking too many vitamins w/iron in them. Small amounts of cyanide are found in almonds. Fluoride, found in almost all US drinking water, is toxic in high concentrations and can kill you in the most horrific way when contacted with your skin in its simplest acid form, HF. So, in the future, when you argue with a scientist about the toxicity of something, state the dosage at which it is harmful. All or nothing doesn't normally apply.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

ROFLMAO!

tah

Chris, honey... When a smoker takes a drag from his ciggy, he is drawing through a fliter, yes. However, the next ten breaths are almost EXACTELY the same as a none smoker, except the smoker is in closer proximity to the ciggy. In fact, the air that is withdrawn through the ciggy during that drag is THE SAME AIR THAT A NON SMOKER USES, so the smoker inhales all of the harmful byproducts as does the non-smoker, and then some.

Your arguement is denied.

Checkmate.

Steve

How long before we see someone trying to ban woodstoves and fireplaces

Already here, Ray. Up here in Seattle they ban woodstoves for weeks at a time. "Stagnant air warnings" they call them. If your stove is fitted with a cadillac converter you can use it more often than one with straight pipes, but smoke coming from your chimminy during a "ban" will get you a fine. Next will be the permits to use a stove, then the searches....

steve

You would be amazed at the different and many times creative things a parent will come up with to try to wrangle custody away from the other parent. Then again, you probably wouldn't...I'm sure the higher population concentration you have in the northern states leads to a lot more insane news stories like that.

Much of the time it is out of revenge, not for the benefit of the child. I wonder how much tht father was really concerned with the child's health compared to how much he wanted to stick it to his ex.

Steve, Yer killing me. Doug

I really wanted to stay out of this, too, but after reading the letters in the July 21, 2003 Time magazine I just had to toss in this thread appropriate quote. One writer's letter to the Ed. quotes Bertrand Russell: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

PL

legitimately

"Stagnant

No, them's in cars. Press a button on the dash, and tail fins pop out of the sides, and the bumpers grow these great, big, um...

You're thinking of a cataract converter..

chimminy during

Steve.. please... it's "chimbley"...

Jeez..

Tod "10 cords of mixed oak, cherry, maple, and poplar ready for my ancient pot belly this fall" Hilty

none smoker,

is withdrawn

Speaking of filters... Do they really filter anything much, or do they mostly function to help cool the smoke before inhaling?

I was thinking of pulling the cadillatic converter and runing some vintage Thrush glasspacks on my wood stove.

Don't forget to use some Hooker Headers.

It might be worse than you think, Ray.

You cannot build a new house in the Denver metro area with a wood burning fireplace in it; new ones are banned. The codes allow "enclosed" natural gas fireplaces, but not wood burners. I'm not sure when the codes were imposed, but they were in effect when we had our new house built in 2000.

Spell checkers do have a purpose, but never at the expense of humor.

steve

LMAO. That was great.

Just think, when your Transformer-playing, Power Rangers-loving kids grow up, they'll develop a Chevy Impala that turns into a Fleetwood, eh.

Doug

"Push the red button..."

none smoker,

is withdrawn

So, did you ever talk to Harry Mudd's robots?

Doug

Are you saying he's a Fig Newton of our collective imaginations?

Randy

Agreed. It's a toxin, but not a carcinogen.

Components in cigarette smoke can be carcinogenic.

With the possible exception of Plutonium, I'm not aware of ANY molecule that can cause cancer at the single molecule/elemental level. It can probably be argued that Pu also requires more than 1 molecule.

"Prudence dictates" that you limit exposure to all risk factors, but reality keeps that from occurring. ;-) I don't go out of my way to frequent smoke-filled rooms, but I don't panic if I happen to find myself in one. I limit my exposure because of the irritating effect that it has on me, the same reason that I don't sit around a campfire singing Kumbaya(sp?) with a bunch of treehuggers. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers