RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking

RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 5:11:26 PM)
quote: The point I'm making is that tobacco has not been removed from the market in a society where we hold everyone accountable except ourselves for what goes wrong. People sued and Phen Phen was taken off the market. People sued because Ford Pintos blew up. A guy sued because Schwinn didn't tell him that people couldn't see him riding a bike in the dark. Another guy sues a casino because they got him drunk in order to take all his money. Our society doesn't take responsibility for anything. Why then has it been decided that people must be accountable for their decision to smoke? It doesn't seem to make any sense, does it? Every single person who smokes is not GUARANTEED to get cancer at some point in their life, what's the explanation for that? The same reason why some winos never get cirrhosis, because everyone's threshold for environmental disease is different... . well it is complicated, but if you talk to almost any scientist that studies cancers they will tell you that it a link between environment and genetics....I mean, why do some people get skin cancer and some people don't? Same concept...not everyone will die from hitting a tree head on in their car... all factors differ.. As far as the lawsuit issue, the largest settlements were made to states who paid for the health care costs from smokers. It cost society. I am with you on this one, if the government allows a substance and people get sick that partake in it, well the government should either tell smokers to fuck off when they get lung cancer, or they should make smoking illegal

Aneirin -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 6:10:47 PM)
Smoking just like anything else in this world that we do, is about personal responsibility, be it base jumping, bungee jumping, pearl diving or just plain old tiddly winks, everything including life itself carries risk, people who engage in what they do, including witwd know the risks, or at least should know the risks involved, and there they make a judgement, they carry on with their chosen activity, or they forget about it and move onto the next thing in their life. Smokers are informed of the dangers, but they just like the base jumper are taking a risk and that risk is about personal responsibility. Personal responsibility seems to have fallen by the wayside in recent years, for everything we do wrong, it always seems that there is someone to whom we may apportion blame, someone else must always be responsible for the risks we take, and who profits from this notion, none but the parasite lawyers every time, win or lose. If things go not as planned, then hey, take a risk, shit can happen, and no one knows how long they will live for, as shit happens therefore with personal responsibilty we take the risks that we do, and what we should be doing, is living every day of our lives as if it was the last day of our lives, as we just don't know what the future holds. In the things that I do, I do because I want to, I am also aware of the dangers of what I do, but I still do them, because simply, I want to, nothing more than that. If what I do goes pear shaped, smoking for instance, hey that is just the risk I took, heads one wins, tails one looses, I will not be suing anyone for anything, as not only does that remove my personal responsibility, but it also implies that I am stupid and that is something I am not, for the warnings are there to be understood by everyone and I do understand.

juliaoceania -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 6:21:55 PM)
You know what, I have no issue with people who smoke.I do have an issue with them smoking in my airspace. I think you are right... people should take personal responsibility for their habit, but this habit impacts society too. We quantify this by taxing cigarettes, but there could be other ways, like charging more for health insurance to smoking families, etc. But no matter how you slice it, statistically speaking people exposed to long term second hand smoke through work or family suffer health outcomes from that according to statistics. According to statistics people who smoke are much more likely to get at times fatal diseases. Now, diesel is bad to inhale, but arguing that people should tolerate smoking because they tolerate diesel is really an illogical position...

Aneirin -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 7:04:16 PM)
What I was saying I think, was that if smoking is publicised as being a cause of lung cancer, then so should diesel fumes receive the same treatment, as it occurs to me, many do not know that diesel is a known carcinogen and if the general public was aware, they could take the personal responsibility to guard themselves from inhaling the stuff and for that matter not producing the fumes for others to breathe, because passive inhaling of diesel fumes is the same as passively inhaling tobacco fumes. Sure diesel has so many good uses where smoking tobacco has not beyond the user of the tobacco, but there are other fuels that can be used instead of diesel, it is not the only fuel source. Furthermore, I mentioned a device which was designed years ago to remove the heavy portion of the diesel fume, it was made available for the then majority users of diesel, the transport industry and public transportation operators, but it was not taken up because for the cost outlay, no one was prepared to pay because the information on the hazards of diesel was not widely known and the fitment of these devices was a voluntary action, no one was prepared to pay and equip vehicles with a device if it was not necessary. If diesel fumes are to be effluxed into the breathing and living enviroment of humans, it should be made safe to breathe now, not later when something better may or may not become available, promises are no good when people are contracting cancers from the fumes.

CynthiaWVirginia -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 11:42:10 PM)
quote: but when a non smoker gets a smoking related illness, how is that explained I wonder. Usually through secondhand smoking. Mom worked at a pharmacy that had it's clerks fill out all the paperwork for people's insurances. People came in smoking, resting their hand on the table a foot and a half away from my mother's face, and mom's eyes watered for the 15 or 20 minutes it took for her to fill out their multitude of forms. All day long. Years later she hurt her shoulder while working at another job and workman's comp had her get an MRI or something...my point is that they saw her lungs were all scarred up like she had been a heavy smoker. Mom never smoked. If diesel fumes bothered you, that's enough to change jobs if it was at all possible. About cigs. They had to remove a lot of other additives some years back, many were cacinogenic and added as flavor or whatever. Maybe some of the cancer rates from smoking will go down a bit because of this, but...hey, it's smoking...it's supposed to be a little dangerous. Don't firemen suffer lung damage over time from sucking up all that smoke? ........................................ Editing. I hit Post Reply, and am clueless when the bottom right says my reply was to DarkSteven instead of the first person who started this thread. Her name started with an A. I'm hopeless at message boards.

DomKen -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/6/2010 11:46:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin What I was saying I think, Actually what you were saying was that based on a single claim made on a well known quacks web page that tobacco wasn't dangerous and that all of the illnesses attributed to tobacco were actually caused by diesel fumes.

Louve00 -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 3:12:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin ...but it also implies that I am stupid and that is something I am not, for the warnings are there to be understood by everyone and I do understand. No. It doesn't imply your stupid at all. I was a respiratory therapist for almost 15 yrs. I knew the dangers of smoking as I treated patients with lung cancer...as I watched people with COPD coming in coding, winding up on ventilators that they became dependent on, and we, as therapists, had to wean them off those ventilators...only to watch them come in next month the same way. I wasn't stupid at all, and watched, first hand the perils of smoking...and at the time still smoked!!! There'll come a point in your life when you'll cherish your life and the ones who depend on you more than the cigarettes (and damage you're doing to yourself), and you'll quit. Or, you won't...and suffer thru the deterioration of ruining your lungs with the dangers of cigarette smoke, compiled with the polution of your surroundings. From my experience in working with people who refused to give up the cigarette, it wasn't until they started to fight....literally fight for each breath....that they wished they would have quit. It you're certainly right. Its a decision for only you to make.

Aneirin -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 3:54:29 AM)
I assume you are referring to the author of the website, Barry Groves Phd as a well known quack, well some refer to he as a quack, others do not, who is right and who is wrong, could it be even that if a person challenges the accepted thinking they then become in the medical field at least, a quack ? But a quack though in general understanding in the medical field is taken to mean someone who commits medical fraud, which is not the case according to the US courts who have ruled someone who is a called a quack and a fraud has to know they are misrepresenting the benefits and the risks involved, therefore I draw your attention to the fact that on the website concerned, where the original information was linked to, the site owner Barry Groves Phd, his mission statement is clear; All articles are fully supported by citations and references to mainstream, peer-reviewed medical, nutritional and other scientific journals to allow you to check that what is written here is correct. Furthermore, Barry Groves Phd, I can find no mention of him in QuackWatch, but as a person, I understand, if the information is correct and it is the very same Barry Groves Phd, he himself is a survivor of cancer, so in being that, he must have some knowledge of the disease, enough at least to research for himself, as many do when they are affected with disease. Other mention is made of his career to date, which extrudes a personal thought from me, which might have some bearing or not, but his resume mentions an RAF career, hmmm, I think, depending upon where he was employed within the RAF and what he came into contact with I think AVTUR, aviation grade turbine fuel, of which I know is not too dissimilar from diesel itself, though it being a more kerosene type fuel in smell, the efflux from gas turbines on an air station is very pervasive, everyone gets to smell it, with some more than others depending on their proximity to the aircraft. K-1 Kerosene, #1 diesel and JP4 jet fuel are closely related to each other, with the jet fuel allowed to have higher sulphur content than kerosene. To note, if one can smell an odour, one is breathing that odour in the form of a gas. So, I do not understand where you get your notion of well known quack from, could you elucidate ? If of course you are referring to the website owner, if you are not and are referring to the author of the controversial article on that website, was she a quack, who says, for her credentials are clear to see.

Termyn8or -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 4:55:42 AM)
Despite the facts, there are more facts. Smokers : 1. May cherish life, but are totally aware that one day it will end. 2. Will do what they damn well please in this life. 3. Have a slightly rebellious nature at the least. When I pick up that first smoke in the morning, it makes me cough to the point of gagging almost. But it seems to coat my lungs or something, and subsequently I am not bothered. Then I get on the highway and fight crosstown traffic to get to work. Talk about fumes. My car has a pre cat leak. By that I mean there is a leak in the exhaust system between the catykitic convertoer and the header pipes. That means it will still pass emissions, but I can smell it. I know what it smells like and you know what ? Where I live every once in a while the wind shifts and my neighborhood is inundated with toxic fumes from a process known as pickling (steel). I didn't know what it was but the olman recognized the smell from being in the business for decades. It is terrible, but it only happens once in a while. It can be bad. In fact our cars seem to rust out faster here. So I am not going to shoot myself over this small amount of pollutant I put out. Are you kidding me ? I am already paying with my life and health for someone across the Harvard - Denison bridge to make money, so I am going to enjoy a nice mild Marlboro. Actually I have switched and no longer pay their taxes, which saves me about five grand a year. Fukum. This five grand worth of computer shit I got came in on a truck, so I have paid enough in taxes. You just don't have a clue how I am tearing those people up. I live like I make three times what I actually do. Be straight on this, if I owe you a hundred bucks I will drive maybe thirty miles to pay you back, but those people with the taxes, they are fair game. This post is not really off topic, because it is all a money game. Think paraquat. T

juliaoceania -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 5:47:07 AM)
quote: If of course you are referring to the website owner, if you are not and are referring to the author of the controversial article on that website, was she a quack, who says, for her credentials are clear to see. This article is not peer reviewed. Having a reference list does not make you peer reviewed on a topic outside of your expertise... she is a bone specialist, not a cancer doctor. Her paper was not published on this topic. I have had reference lists for papers I write even when I was in community college, it isn't all that hard to compile a list of books that one has read

juliaoceania -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 5:49:39 AM)
quote: So I am not going to shoot myself over this small amount of pollutant I put out. Are you kidding me ? I am already paying with my life and health for someone across the Harvard - Denison bridge to make money, so I am going to enjoy a nice mild Marlboro. I would agree with you if you were not so militant about your right to light up in public places.

Aneirin -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 6:46:49 AM)
Well perhaps the site slipped up with that article, but Harvard referencing I am aware of and am to use in a dissertation I should really be doing this weekend, but I am still in the thinking how to go about it stage, a dissertation on Joe Rosenthal's most famous photograph, what fun.

DomKen -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 7:32:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin I assume you are referring to the author of the website, Barry Groves Phd as a well known quack, well some refer to he as a quack, others do not, who is right and who is wrong, could it be even that if a person challenges the accepted thinking they then become in the medical field at least, a quack ? But a quack though in general understanding in the medical field is taken to mean someone who commits medical fraud, which is not the case according to the US courts who have ruled someone who is a called a quack and a fraud has to know they are misrepresenting the benefits and the risks involved, therefore I draw your attention to the fact that on the website concerned, where the original information was linked to, the site owner Barry Groves Phd, his mission statement is clear; All articles are fully supported by citations and references to mainstream, peer-reviewed medical, nutritional and other scientific journals to allow you to check that what is written here is correct. Furthermore, Barry Groves Phd, I can find no mention of him in QuackWatch, but as a person, I understand, if the information is correct and it is the very same Barry Groves Phd, he himself is a survivor of cancer, so in being that, he must have some knowledge of the disease, enough at least to research for himself, as many do when they are affected with disease. Other mention is made of his career to date, which extrudes a personal thought from me, which might have some bearing or not, but his resume mentions an RAF career, hmmm, I think, depending upon where he was employed within the RAF and what he came into contact with I think AVTUR, aviation grade turbine fuel, of which I know is not too dissimilar from diesel itself, though it being a more kerosene type fuel in smell, the efflux from gas turbines on an air station is very pervasive, everyone gets to smell it, with some more than others depending on their proximity to the aircraft. K-1 Kerosene, #1 diesel and JP4 jet fuel are closely related to each other, with the jet fuel allowed to have higher sulphur content than kerosene. To note, if one can smell an odour, one is breathing that odour in the form of a gas. So, I do not understand where you get your notion of well known quack from, could you elucidate ? If of course you are referring to the website owner, if you are not and are referring to the author of the controversial article on that website, was she a quack, who says, for her credentials are clear to see. In short bullshit. http://holfordwatch.info/2009/01/20/barry-groves-second-opinions-website-loses-honcode-accreditation/ More specific criticism of Groves can be found in the papers dealing with his "light cures cancer" claims and his endorsement of ultra low carb diets.

Aneirin -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 7:58:36 AM)
You of course are entitled to read what you read and draw your own conclusions, but I know diesel fumes are a known carcinogen and what brought this article back to me was the fact that I am now a biker and the thought of the slow crawl to work in heavy traffic does not fill me with glee, diesel fumes again, for which I will attempt to protect myself with the use of a pollution filtering mask , just like I did when I was a cyclist. http://www.icanbreathe.com/favorite.htm http://www.icanbreathe.com/newpage112.htm I also hear these were the same masks athletes used on the run up to the Beijing Olympics because of the polluted air they had to breathe. If smoking causes lung cancer, those that care enough to, protect yourselves, if inhaling diesel fumes causes lung cancer, again, protect yourselves, have personal responsibility and take what precautions are necessary to ensure your health and that of your loved ones, as no matter what facts come out about either or indeed any noxious gas in our living enviroment, you can bet your bottom dollar the corporations with a vested interest are not going to change their ways, especially when they have clout with those that govern us.

Termyn8or -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 7:59:07 AM)
"I would agree with you if you were not so militant about your right to light up in public places" I can accept that. But remember that I am also part of the public. What if I decided not to bathe or shower for say, a year. T

juliaoceania -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 8:10:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I would agree with you if you were not so militant about your right to light up in public places" I can accept that. But remember that I am also part of the public. What if I decided not to bathe or shower for say, a year. T Then in all likelihood a restaurant or a bar would tell you that you could leave... they have the right to refuse service.... same on public transit. I do not know about government buildings...shrugs I do know that I am thankful I encounter very few such individuals... being a smoker is more ubiquitous. To be honest, people who wear heavy cheap cologne and perfume also cause allergies and people get head aches, etc... which is far more common.

Termyn8or -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 8:26:14 AM)
Wait now, I have a summons to appear in court. (critical mass is almost here folks) T

Aneirin -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 8:30:36 AM)
I always accepted smoking around people eating to be a discourtesy, so I totally agree with bans on smoking in eateries. Similarly, in a person's property, lighting up is another discourtesy if permission to smoke is not sought, where there is no permission I will not smoke, so the smoking bans largely do not affect me except in the case of public houses over a beer, but then the smoking ban in pubs is exacting it's own toll on the pub trade, any landlord or pub manager will tell you. Oh yes, before I forget, before I was a smoker, I remember the smokers on public transport and how it used to make me feel sick, especially it seemed on rainy days for some reason, but with that memory in mind, I will not sit and smoke. I smoke in the comfort of my own home, out in the open air and anywhere else which is outside, the pub, outside, but now out of the rain, by customer pressure and stuff the government, a risk is being taken, but like the landlord said, when he is serving beer, he does not know where the smokers are, as long as they are outside. College has now also succumbed a bit to the ban, before it was no smoking on the premises, be that inside or out, now by people failing to obey the rules, we have a smoking area out of the rain and the college is next to a police station. What we all need in all things, is compromise, this outright one sided attitude in one sector's interest is wrong, it is not civilised, neither is it noble. If smokers were not being demonised all the time, maybe there might be change as now, I suspect it is rebellion that is keeping things as they are. And yes, I do wholeheartedly agree about the perfume/ cologne issue, as last friday in the pub, sickness came to my stomach on smelling the over application of a perfume called Jupe, it has a smell I liken to Anais Anais and one that always makes my stomach turn. The person wearing the shit was a pal, and I tried to educate him on the application of scents, skin types and such, from a barge pole length away, the perfume was noxious and I was not the only one who thought so.

LadyEllen -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 8:37:22 AM)
But Aneirin, pubs have not suffered because of the smoking ban! They have instead put up shelters in accordance with the regulations such that they dont count as being enclosed spaces, and installed those outdoor heaters for the winter and the evening chill - so that they retain the smokers as customers. And the biggest joke of all is that the non smokers tend to congregate in those shelters too - presumably because they object to smokers and/or smoking. E

Aneirin -> RE: Diesel fumes more carcinogenic than smoking (3/7/2010 11:00:45 AM)
Heaters ? This might be Devon, but out there now, it is about freezing, I know because I have just come in from messing about with my bike and am just starting to warm up with a coffee and a fag. Nope, no heaters in the pubs I use, it is either standing by a lake under an umbrella, or at the bottom of a quarry cliff.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625