Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 7:08:26 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
And I do not need a scientific journal to know that.

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 7:25:46 AM   
Louve00


Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Actually, that site isn't complete!  That only covers the additives which are added in during the manufacturing process.  But when tobacco is grown, it is not covered by USDA regs which limit pesticide use, so that tobacco will likely have greater pesticide residue levels than food does.



All the more reason!  And those pesticides are burned and inhaled, creating a noxious, gaseous poison that smoker's inhale.  There just is not any good reason to smoke.  Its bad enough we have polluted air to breathe, without adding to the equation.

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 7:34:54 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
FR

First of all I don't think anyone here actually claimed that smoking is good for you. Even though I smoke I wonder just who was the first brainiac to figure out how to burn things and inhale the fumes.

Not getting published in the jounals can happen for many reasons. It happened to Linus Pauling. I don't trust that their reasons are pure in intent and based only on flawed methodology. In fact it seems the proper methodology in this case is dosing lab rats with the equivalent of how many cigarettes per day ? At those levels almost anything can be a carcinogen.

So why isn't there much published data on deisel fumes ? Simple, less study. Why ? Because if it is found to be a strong(er) carcinogen and banned from use, the world economy would stop dead in it's tracks. What's more if every bit of valid research were published say in the AMA journal, it would make the patriot act look like a TV guide. It is also in what they decide is pertinent and important, and again that is at best, sans any ulterior motives whatsoever.

We have just about the poorest health in the world while spending the most money on it. So how could anyone in the world trust the AMA to be the beacon of truth ? The "food pyramid" is a joke almost worldwide.

Also I firmly believe that poor nutrition makes people more susceptable to many diseases. That's why lab rats have the best diet in the world. It has every essential mineral in it, while baby formula does not. Even puppy chow is more nutritious. This special super diet is required because THEY KNOW deficiency causes disease and that must be eliminated to generate empirical data. So I ask, why haven't we seen those studies ?

Actually I don't find it very hard to believe that deisel fumes are more dangerous than cigarette smoke if administered in the same proportions. As such it's effects are not as profound nor direct. Nasty ass deisel fumes vs a nice mellow tobacco smoke with little or no additives - the case is not so clear. Nor is it all that important to me.

What is important is that alot of good research goes down the drain. Alot of this is conducted properly and following all of the protocols to a T, yet it is not published. So to dismiss research that has not been published is therefore, illogical.

T

(in reply to Louve00)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 7:37:55 AM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
The last thing I heard about diesel wasn't the fumes - it's the particulates.  They're just the right size to get in your lungs and stay there.

There are newer designs for diesels that dramatically reduce the particulates while keeping the efficiency, as does using low-sulphur fuels.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 7:57:10 AM   
Louve00


Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


Also I firmly believe that poor nutrition makes people more susceptable to many diseases.


I read that exact statement in a health journal I was reading once. 

I think, truly....its the whole picture, once put together, that makes the difference.  Don't smoke, drink (alcohol) in moderation, eat well, exercise, etc, etc, etc...that does a body good.  Its not just one factor.  Alot of the factors are self-induced and completely avoidable though.  And a little, teeny tiny bit of education about it goes a long long way.


_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 8:13:11 AM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline
As a smoker, I used to cycle six miles a day to work, every day bar sundays and when I say cycle, I mean fast as I was as ever usually late for work.Cycling is a cardio vascular activity and my aim was never mind the hills, maintain a steady cadence, so the term used was spinning, low gears and maintain the pedal cycle of about 62 cycles per minute as that was the most efficient way of getting anywhere.

In order to get to work, I had to cycle in traffic and much of that was down a fast moving dual carriageway, what is called an A road in this country, anyway my journey to work resulted in me arriving at work on time and  walking around stinking of diesel fumes before I even started working with the things. How I felt, was yukky, sort of slimey and sick, sick in that my stomach was gassy and I felt on the verge of vomiting for a good hour after my arrival. I read the hazard reports at work regarding my occupation and then linked diesel to my feeling, so, I purchased a respro pollution mask and there wore that to work, the result of which, no more sicky feeling, but the smell of diesel fumes was still with me, which eventually contributed to me leaving my profession, as the persistant smell that was with me it seemed all the time I came to find abhorrent.

Now, I quizzed my doctor regarding the sick feeling prior to the respro pollution mask and he said well, I smoke, so therefore that was the cause, but he was amazed I was a cyclist being a smoker, but I told him later I had cured my own problem by the use of the mask and it was my belief it was the traffic fumes that was causing this chronic illness, he was adamant, it was my smoking even after the problem had gone.

Now I only smoke rolling tobacco, the stuff that comes in a pouch and  has to be rolled into a ciggy or sometimes stuffed into my pipe, I cannot smoke ready made cigarettes, as they make me feel instantly sick and give me a sharp headache to boot, I also cannot smoke cigars, they are too heavy for me. I am as I have always been, a fairly heavy smoker, but I know I would do better as a lighter smoker, the effects I seek would be more, but I do what I do, and now on a very low income I find it helps to quell hunger pangs from not having the food I should be having. After a severe back injury caused at work, I have now quit heavy cycling but to maintain my fitness, I walk a lot and dance, and walking around here to get anywhere involves lots of hills, my route down to anywhere involves a one in four hill which has to be climbed to get back home carrying whatever, usually my shopping when I get it, as I have no viable motorised transport.

This topic came back to me recently, as I now have motorised transport, which when it becomes viable, i.e. I have put it back together, I will again be facing the traffic fumes and as the motorised transport is a motorcycle, I will not be having the luxury of an air conditioned cabin to shield me from the majority of the fumes, I am again going to have to go down the pollution mask route, but the topic came back to me hard because of what I know about diesel fumes.

Smoking tobacco from a users point of view, yeah I continue because it is a habit, but I do get some relaxation from it, which to me is a plus, but due to my low income, it helps battle the food problem. What I see as bad from smoking is a continuation from the hunger quelling aspect, feeling hunger pangs means I need food, the lack of which makes me tired and lethargic, the lethargy contributes to a lazier lifestyle, which is not good for overall health. I understand this, but it also works for me in that when I run out of tobacco, it forces me out of my home in all weathers to walk those hills again, so it is helping me exercise. Often when I do go out, my return journey is quite often extended from say half an hour to a few hours as I find interest in walking on the cliffs, through the woods or going to watch the sea from the beach, all of which gives me an appetite tobacco will not quell.

Regards the government seeing tobacco users as a cash cow, whom they are it seems more than happy to make money out of, why the double standard, if it was as dangerous as they make out and in this country the majority burden on the NHS, why then is it still allowed to be sold, that is what I do not understand. Perhaps I am being obstinate, but I will only believe them when it is outright banned from sale, as to me then, they are putting their(our) money where their mouth is, they believe what they say.

Scientists, why do they pick what they do to research, who pays them and where does the money come from has to be asked, as most of us are aware agenda can be woven into any scientific hypothesis, the current global warming fiasco is a good example of this. We in this present age have taken science to be the new god and what they say we abide by, although often what is made available as sound bites, is not the complete story and by being incomplete, it is out on context, we need to learn to be critical of the new god, as we have always been with the old gods.

Diesel fume cleaning, well work is going on to clean the exhaust gases as I speak,so the danger is obviously known about, Dyson, the inventor of the cyclone vacuum cleaner, designed such a device years ago for diesel transport, but even at a cost of I remember no more than £200 fitted, it was seen as not viable due to cost, not performance, it worked, but most did not see the need as they were unaware of the dangers of diesel fumes. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Scania wagons have a similar device fitted in their smoke stacks, which would be about right for the Swedes, for they care about air quality and put their money where their mouth is, they have a beautiful land to protect.


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 8:57:25 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

FR

First of all I don't think anyone here actually claimed that smoking is good for you. Even though I smoke I wonder just who was the first brainiac to figure out how to burn things and inhale the fumes.

Not getting published in the jounals can happen for many reasons. It happened to Linus Pauling. I don't trust that their reasons are pure in intent and based only on flawed methodology. In fact it seems the proper methodology in this case is dosing lab rats with the equivalent of how many cigarettes per day ? At those levels almost anything can be a carcinogen.

So why isn't there much published data on deisel fumes ? Simple, less study. Why ? Because if it is found to be a strong(er) carcinogen and banned from use, the world economy would stop dead in it's tracks. What's more if every bit of valid research were published say in the AMA journal, it would make the patriot act look like a TV guide. It is also in what they decide is pertinent and important, and again that is at best, sans any ulterior motives whatsoever.

We have just about the poorest health in the world while spending the most money on it. So how could anyone in the world trust the AMA to be the beacon of truth ? The "food pyramid" is a joke almost worldwide.

Also I firmly believe that poor nutrition makes people more susceptable to many diseases. That's why lab rats have the best diet in the world. It has every essential mineral in it, while baby formula does not. Even puppy chow is more nutritious. This special super diet is required because THEY KNOW deficiency causes disease and that must be eliminated to generate empirical data. So I ask, why haven't we seen those studies ?

Actually I don't find it very hard to believe that deisel fumes are more dangerous than cigarette smoke if administered in the same proportions. As such it's effects are not as profound nor direct. Nasty ass deisel fumes vs a nice mellow tobacco smoke with little or no additives - the case is not so clear. Nor is it all that important to me.

What is important is that alot of good research goes down the drain. Alot of this is conducted properly and following all of the protocols to a T, yet it is not published. So to dismiss research that has not been published is therefore, illogical.

T



to get published your findings have to earn money for a corporation.  


(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 8:58:17 AM   
MotownSingleGuy


Posts: 15
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: The Motor City, Michigan, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
... I just have to ask why Diesel Smoke and Lung Cancer by Dr Kitty Little is lodged away on a website rather than out in the public sphere ...


The main reason would be that it's largely obsolete. Diesel engine exhaust emission standards have tightened up quite a bit since 1998.
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/

And for what it's worth:
JET-A is almost exactly the same fuel as #1 Diesel. (winter Diesel) Same viscosity, density, energy content, flammability, you name it.
Jet fuel doesn't include a lubricant and Diesel fuel doesn't usually include a bacterial inhibitor, but that's about the only difference.
#2 Diesel (summer Diesel) is slightly less flammable than #1 or JET-A, but the difference is almost immaterial. The main difference is that #2 will turn to jelly in the cold and #1 and JET-A will not.

Recent Diesel exhaust emission controls have not increased the amount of small particulate matter emitted. Small particulates have become a bigger percentage because large particulates have been eliminated by a DPF (Diesel particulate filter)

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 9:53:20 AM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline
Ah, so another possible culprit for increases in lung cancer, aviation fuel, if I remember correctly AVTUR, a bit of which when introduced into a vehicle diesel fuel system greatly enhanced cold weather starting and running problems.

If referring back to the article linked in the OP, the incidence of lung cancer being first recorded in the 1950's might have something to do with the fact that after WW2 the advances made in aviation technology, world travel became more available to the masses, and by that the use of jet engines burning AVTUR whereas before  the majority of civilian and military air carriers were piston engines burning AVGAS, basically a high octane petrol, ( which also did good things for petrol driven cars), but of which I understand both aviation fuels do not have any enviromental restrictions or indeed taxes placed upon them. With the rise and affordability of air travel up to this day, we have seen the rise in reported cases of lung cancer, whereas the habit of smoking has decreased, so we now have passive smoking to be the cause not anything else considered.

When smoking is at last stamped out and the instances of lung cancer are still being recorded or appear to be rising, just what will be the culprit next I wonder ?

I do understand the need for affordable fuel in both aviation, maritime, vehicular and stationary engines, but I wish for the hazards to be known in their entirety and truthfulness, as anything else is an insult to intelligence, something which will come back and bite the purveyors of half truths and lies in the ass at some point, no doubt causing  x amount of problems on the way.

Perhaps if people were aware of the truths that exist, they could make their own choices as to what health protection they  personally need, if that includes the use of pollution filtering face masks, then so be it, until advances are made in  viable clean fuels, although I understand anything of fossil derived is a health concern in quantities, be that coal, petrol or diesel, the heavier fuels we use and so I understand  sand tar and certain biofuels.


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to MotownSingleGuy)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:00:52 AM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

When smoking is at last stamped out and the instances of lung cancer are still being recorded or appear to be rising, just what will be the culprit next I wonder ?

Has anyone ever claimed that smoking is the only cause of lung cancer?  No.  Your postulations are asinine.

~stef

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:32:27 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

So why isn't there much published data on deisel fumes ? Simple, less study. Why ? Because if it is found to be a strong(er) carcinogen and banned from use, the world economy would stop dead in it's tracks. What's more if every bit of valid research were published say in the AMA journal, it would make the patriot act look like a TV guide. It is also in what they decide is pertinent and important, and again that is at best, sans any ulterior motives whatsoever.


As someone who studied longshoremen for a project I undertook a year ago, there is ample data on the harm of inhaling diesel fuel. It is one reason that longshoremen get paid so well, their health is jeopardized by the port environment. There is a huge green ports movement here to protect those of us who live in the harbor (I can see cranes from my window). Just google longhshoremen+air+diesel+cancer


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:34:29 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

to get published your findings have to earn money for a corporation.




As someone who has had a paper published I can tell you that is absolutely bullshit (waiting for the check from a "corporation")


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:41:52 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

If you ask me, any inhaled polutant is a carcinogen.  Granted, some may just not be healthy for you and not eventually increase your chances of getting cancer, but I don't know what they would be.  http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm  That sight will list the 900 and something carcinogens in a cigarette.  And tobacco companies themselves in that article that while ALL the ingredients listed aren't carcinogens, some are actually considererd a food supplement, but none of them were tested in a burned state.  (And there are studies done, showing that food cooked at high temperatures create carcinogens.  Diesel fumes, chemical shops, the coal mines.  Anything you put into your lungs could have a consequence.  Think about it.  :)


Actually, that site isn't complete!  That only covers the additives which are added in during the manufacturing process.  But when tobacco is grown, it is not covered by USDA regs which limit pesticide use, so that tobacco will likely have greater pesticide residue levels than food does.



It doesn't. I grew up in tobacco raising families. Most tobacco isn't grown by big farm giants. It is done by small farmers, an acre or two at a time. About the only spraying I ever saw was for blue mold and suckers, whereas food crops were dusted or sprayed regularly.

A short family history here regarding tobacco.

My great-great grandmother dipped snuff most of her adult life. Age at death, 101, cause old age I reckon. My great-grandfather smoked from age 6 until death at 76. My great-grandmother inherited the snuff addiction from her mother. Age at death, 90, cause alzheimer's.

Grand father smoked from 10 until age of death at 74. Cause, heart attack. Grandmother, started and quit smoking at an early age, something like 16, but lived with second hand smoke from her husband and 3 sons for almost 60 years. Age, just celebrated her 92nd birthday. All sons also still alive, two non smokers, two smokers in the bunch but all smoked for at least 20 years at some point.

Everyone in that family of 9, including my mother smoked or used tobacco at some point. Most still do. Cases of cancer? 0

I need to edit this because I am in no way promoting smoking. Even if you don't end up with cancer, it still ain't good for you.

What most I think is lacking in most studies however, is the propensitiy for cancer in the first place. In other words, the genetic flaw or lack there of that either causes it or prevents it. Cholesterol is a good example. It is well known there is a genetic flaw in people who suffer from high cholesterol, and therefore are more at risk for heart attack and stroke. It means a good portion of the public can eat that ice cream without undue worry. I say undue because you can create high cholesterol problems even if your body processes it efficiently. It's the smaller segment that has such a greater problem that drives most of the fear mongering.

Once genetic flaws can be fixed, most of this will be a moot point I think.


< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 3/5/2010 10:49:11 AM >


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:44:27 AM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

When smoking is at last stamped out and the instances of lung cancer are still being recorded or appear to be rising, just what will be the culprit next I wonder ?

Has anyone ever claimed that smoking is the only cause of lung cancer?  No.  Your postulations are asinine.

~stef


No, smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer ( it indeed it is ), there are many other causes, but as far as the general public are concerned, the education that appears to exist for us to consume is that it is smoking that is the cause. If it is a cause amongst many, do you not think the general public need to be educated to the same extent as the smoking issue ? Or are people to go blindly on doing what they do, going where they go thinking as long as they do not come into contact with smokers and their habit, they are safe from getting lung cancer, when in fact something they may be doing or using without knowledge may be doing them the same harm ?

If there are multiple hazards out there, that we come into contact with on a daily basis, then they all need to be known about, not just the politically useful.


< Message edited by Aneirin -- 3/5/2010 10:54:13 AM >


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:48:42 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
Just as an aside on the pesticide thing, the baled tobacco has to be sprayed regularly too prior to use because it gets infested with beetles. Those little fizz sounds you sometimes get? The remains of the beetles being incinerated.

Nice

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:51:27 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Just as an aside on the pesticide thing, the baled tobacco has to be sprayed regularly too prior to use because it gets infested with beetles. Those little fizz sounds you sometimes get? The remains of the beetles being incinerated.

Nice

E


and... let a banana sit for a few days or just about any type of fruit. All those fruit gnats come from the eggs you don't eat.

Nice there too huh


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:51:39 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

No, smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer ( it indeed it is ), there are many other causes, but as far as the general public are concerned, the education that appears to exist for us to consume is that it is smoking that is the cause. If it is a cause amongst many, do you not think the general public need to be educated to the same extent as the smoking issue ? Or are people to go blindly on doing what they do, going where they go thinking as long as they do not come into contact with smokers and their habit, they are safe from getting lung cancer, when in fact something they may be doing or using without knowledge may be doing them the same harm ?


We cannot control environmental pollution as individuals... we can choose not to smoke. Having a tobacco addiction is indeed an individual risk factor that can be completely mitigated by not smoking. It would make common sense that people would be educated on this risk to their health since they have complete control over it. The other stuff takes time to change, and there are many people working for that change.


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:54:29 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:


We cannot control environmental pollution as individuals... we can choose not to smoke. Having a tobacco addiction is indeed an individual risk factor that can be completely mitigated by not smoking. It would make common sense that people would be educated on this risk to their health since they have complete control over it. The other stuff takes time to change, and there are many people working for that change.
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Just as an aside on the pesticide thing, the baled tobacco has to be sprayed regularly too prior to use because it gets infested with beetles. Those little fizz sounds you sometimes get? The remains of the beetles being incinerated.

Nice

E


and... let a banana sit for a few days or just about any type of fruit. All those fruit gnats come from the eggs you don't eat.

Nice there too huh



I had a professor who came from a family of vintners... he told me that rats get crushed with the grapes... I haven't  liked wine all that much since


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 10:54:53 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

No, smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer ( it indeed it is ), there are many other causes, but as far as the general public are concerned, the education that appears to exist for us to consume is that it is smoking that is the cause. If it is a cause amongst many, do you not think the general public need to be educated to the same extent as the smoking issue ? Or are people to go blindly on doing what they do, going where they go thinking as long as they do not come into contact with smokers and their habit, they are safe from getting lung cancer, when in fact something they may be doing or using without knowledge may be doing them the same harm ?


We cannot control environmental pollution as individuals... we can choose not to smoke. Having a tobacco addiction is indeed an individual risk factor that can be completely mitigated by not smoking. It would make common sense that people would be educated on this risk to their health since they have complete control over it. The other stuff takes time to change, and there are many people working for that change.



The greatest cause of lung cancer in non-smokers is, drum roll, radon, a natural gas. It's why most houses have to be tested these days.


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking - 3/5/2010 11:54:37 AM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline
That's interesting, for where I live right down to and including the Penwith peninsular is granite, a known producer of radon gas, but not all radon gas is a hazard to health. It would be interesting to see what the instances are of recorded lung cancer deaths from people who live in granite areas to sustantiate this claim. To my knowledge in the UK, up around Aberdeen is granite, and down here in Cornwall is granite. But on the smoking issue, recently my town was labelled as one where there were more that smoked than didn't, and was one of the worst for smoking in the south of England.

< Message edited by Aneirin -- 3/5/2010 11:55:00 AM >


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141