The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 3:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:56 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Khross wrote:
Diamondeye:

What do you consider the most violent organization in the United States?


That depends. Are we talking about the most prone to violence at the individual level, the most prone to violence as an organization, the most physically destructive when it does engage in violence, or some aggregate of those chaacteristics? If it is an aggregate, how would you weight those characteristics or any other you feel are useful to the measure?

This is not a dodge; I fully intend to answer your question. I just want to be clear on how you are defining things so that we don't get into another unproductive back-and-forth based on what we are using as a criteria for violence. I actually have several answers, all of wich I consider legitimate, depending ont eh criteria involved.

Or would you prefer that I just answer and tell you what criteria I used?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:08 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Diamondeye:

Eh, answer and give me your criteria.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:39 am 
Offline
Home of the Whopper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:51 am
Posts: 6098
Foamy wrote:
Khross wrote:
Foamy:

So, you don't want exactly what you're asking for, which is more laws? How's that cognitive dissonance working out for you?


Give me a break. I think you are smart enough to understand what I am getting at.

Call it wishful thinking. I wish there were some way that children could be better protected from idiot parents. Sure life is not fair, but less so when defenseless children are subjected to the whims of their parents whether they are dangerous or not.

I know I can't have it both ways. Perhaps, as you suggested, there should be less laws against, say, punching someone in the face who lights up in a public place. Or maybe if people had more courage to speak up to the parent who they witness blowing smoke in their infant's face...


I'm with you, Foamy. And I am one of those idiot parents! :?
That being said, there are some pretty good arguments in this thread for the other perspective.
I wish there was a law against smoking around children in a closed environment, but I can see that will never happen.
That is why people 'raise awareness' I guess.
The one thing that stopped me, finally, from smoking inside when I was a smoker, was my son coming home when he was 3 and handing me that smoke-outside pledge. Maybe the answer is spreading awareness like that instead of passing a law.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:02 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Khross wrote:
Diamondeye:

Eh, answer and give me your criteria.


All right, tell you what. I'll answer it based on a variety of criteria and combinations, and if you don't like those you can specify another criteria, or you can go ahead and make whatever point you want based on my answers.

Most violent as individuals: Various gangs and criminal organizations. MS-13, Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, Barrio 18, etc. Picking any one would require splitting hairs over various subjective measues of what particular behavior was most violent. If I had to pick one, I would probably pick MS-13 but I know somewhat more about them than the others so that is a biased choice.

Most prone to violence as an organization: U.S. military. Engaging in violence is its entire reason for existing, and it has been engaging in combat or operations involving a significant risk of combat for about 20 years now.

Most physical destructive power: U.S. Strategic Command, and subordinate nuclear assets. Despite never using its nuclear weapons, this organization is only rivaled by Russian equivalents in sheer firepower.

Most individually and organizationally violent, with most destructive power relative to size: various special forces. Although SF troops are not prone to uncontrolled inidividual violence, they have the highest ratio (near 100%) of people whose job is to fight as opposed to those who support but whose primary job is not direct combat. They are individually capable of doing more damage than the vast majority of other people, and the organizations exist only for the purpose of doing violence.

Most organizationally violent relative to ability to cause harm: National Football League. Despite engaging in activity that would be hostile and assaultive in any other context, and doing so as a matter of course, football players cause little actual harm

Most individually violent relative to ability to cause harm: National Hockey League. Similar to NFL, but hockey players regularly engage in unsanctined fistfights which, while apparently brutal, rarely result in serious harm.

Highest aggregate combination of ability to and frequency of engaging in violence: Central Command; regularly engages in combat and uses very powerful conventional weapons

Most responsible for promoting violence: Blizzard Entertainment. Has created most successful MMO ever centered almost entirely around combat. Occasionally the targt of morons who think slaughtering digital cartoons translates to a desire to slaughter actual people.

Most responsible for promoting real-life violence: Several domestic terrorist organizations, whose coherency, capabilities and agenda are open to debate. Too lengthy to address here in more precision. Naming any in particular liable to produce howls of dismay.

Most responsible for inadvertently promoting violence: National Education Association. Heavily responsible for promoting public education in which victims are regularly punished, while punishments on aggressors tend to be either ineffective or reward the behavior.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Khross wrote:
The majority of posters in this thread should be ashamed of themselves. They should be appalled at their willingness to use government force to prevent other adults from making their own choice. I understand that the general opinion is that smoking is a vile, evil habit. I get that the majority know or have known someone who is dying from said habit. I understand that is has palpable and visceral negative effects, even if it never causes COPD or Lung Cancer in a particular individual. But, honestly, just another "think of the Children so we can ban something we don't like" thread isn't constructive. It's not even valid.


Bullshit. If you want to be apalled, perhaps you should be apalled at the notion that a parent's right to pollute their own body is superior to their children's right to be free from said pollution.


Quote:
But god forbid someone say, Let's Regulate Homosexuality; Let's Regulate Polyamory; Let's Regulate Liberals; Let's Regulate Conservatives; Let's Regulate Driving even further; Let's Regulate Video Games ...


No where near the same thing. None of those things does direct bodily harm to a child, with the possibility of driving, which we *do* regulate and for good reason. Polyarmory, liberalism, conservatism, and video games are not anything close to the same category as second hand cigarette smoke.

Quote:
We need someone who will stand up and pop the **** out of that jackass in McDonald's who lit a cigarette.


So, the democratic process isn't the answer, random vigilante "justice", unaccountable to the law and without due process, is? So, if I think conservatism, to use your logic above, is harmful, I should simply beat the local dead-baby-sign-carrying preacher to a pulp with his own sign? Satisfying as that might be on some level, I doubt very strongly you would advocate for that.

You said it yourself once - liberty is not license. Just because you can do a thing does not mean you should do a thing.


Quote:
Stop trying to use the government to enforce common sense.


Instead, just be violent, right? You would exchange one form of force for another. Frankly, I would rather have due process and checks and balances over what "some guy" happens to think deserves his mighty hand o' justice at any given moment.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:08 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
The parent's right to smoke supersedes the right of schildren to be free of pollutants because there is no such thing as a right to be free of pollutants.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:11 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
I would totally agree with MS-13 above the other gangs, except maybe for MM.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Diamondeye wrote:
The parent's right to smoke supersedes the right of schildren to be free of pollutants because there is no such thing as a right to be free of pollutants.



So, in your opinion, parents have the right to poison their children? And, in your opinion, children do not have the right to be free from being poisoned?

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:17 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Monte wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
The parent's right to smoke supersedes the right of schildren to be free of pollutants because there is no such thing as a right to be free of pollutants.



So, in your opinion, parents have the right to poison their children? And, in your opinion, children do not have the right to be free from being poisoned?


Correlation does not equal causation.

Appeal to emotion.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Way to avoid the argument. Also, the relationship between second hand smoke and illness in children is not some random causal fallacy. There is reams of scientific data that shows, with absolute clarity, that second hand smoke inhilation is dangerous to children.

It *is* poison. It is not an appeal to emotion to ask a question like this, given DE's position. He said, very clearly, children do not have a right to be free from pollutants. Therefore, he clearly feels that parents who smoke have the right to poison their children. I just want to be sure he understands his position.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:20 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
The parent's right to smoke supersedes the right of schildren to be free of pollutants because there is no such thing as a right to be free of pollutants.



So, in your opinion, parents have the right to poison their children? And, in your opinion, children do not have the right to be free from being poisoned?


Poison is not the same as pollutant. A poison is something that will cause immediate, direct, and serious bodily harm. Pollutants may or may not cause harm of unspecified severity at some point in the future. Almost anything can be a pollutant.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:26 pm 
Offline
Doom Patrol
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 1145
Location: The subtropics
Khross wrote:
There are consequences to everything, and maybe, just maybe, if we let people suffer the consequences of their own actions without government intervention at every corner ... MAYBE people might get a clue.



This is the most important statement made in this whole arguement. Let consequences fall and let people grow up.

This applies to smoking and all else.

I believe activites that are bad for the person doing them should be taxed sufficiently to pay for the consequences of the actions.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Cigarettes are poison. Poisons do not need to act immediately to be considered a poison. That being said, inhaling second hand smoke has immediate or near immediate consequences for the body -

Quote:
* Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, interfering with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of heart attack.
* Even a short time in a smoky room can cause your blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability.
* Persons who already have heart disease are at especially high risk of suffering adverse affects from breathing secondhand smoke, and should take special precautions to avoid even brief exposure.


Quote:
Secondhand smoke can cause sudden infant death syndrome and other health consequences in infants and children.

* Smoking by women during pregnancy has been known for some time to cause SIDS.
* Infants who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are also at greater risk of SIDS.
* Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also at an increased risk for acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.


If you live with a smoker, your chances of developing lung cancer increase by 20-30 percent.

Is it poison? Here are just a few chemicals in second hand smoke -

Quote:
* arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
* benzene (a chemical found in gasoline)
* beryllium (a toxic metal)
* cadmium (a metal used in batteries)
* chromium (a metallic element)
* ethylene oxide (a chemical used to sterilize medical devices)
* nickel (a metallic element)
* polonium–210 (a chemical element that gives off radiation)
* vinyl chloride (a toxic substance used in plastics manufacture)


Poison -

1. a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.

If cigarette smoke does not qualify under the definition of what a poison is, I don't know what does. So, I ask you again - do parents have the right to poison their children, and do children have the right to be free from being poisoned?

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Squirrel Girl wrote:

This is the most important statement made in this whole arguement. Let consequences fall and let people grow up.


And what do you think about companies that intentionally hid the consequences of tobacco use, marketed those products to children with the express purpose of getting them addicted to the product, and even billed cigarettes as having health benefits?

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:41 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
I can't even address the number of logical fallacies at this point. Go on believing you understand the science if you want, you're incorrect.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
What logical fallacies, DFK? Don't be lazy and dismiss my argument - I'm right.

What is the definition of a poison? I listed that. Does cigarette smoke qualify as a poison, under that definition? Yes. Does second hand smoke deliver those toxins to those that breathe them? Yes.

Therefore, my question, the one you objected so strenuously to, stands. Do parents have the right to poison their children? If you smoke in the presence of other people, you *are* poisoning them. Don't I, as a person, have a right to not be poisoned?

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:48 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
Cigarettes are poison. Poisons do not need to act immediately to be considered a poison. That being said, inhaling second hand smoke has immediate or near immediate consequences for the body -

Quote:
* Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, interfering with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of heart attack.
* Even a short time in a smoky room can cause your blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability.
* Persons who already have heart disease are at especially high risk of suffering adverse affects from breathing secondhand smoke, and should take special precautions to avoid even brief exposure.


Quote:
Secondhand smoke can cause sudden infant death syndrome and other health consequences in infants and children.

* Smoking by women during pregnancy has been known for some time to cause SIDS.
* Infants who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are also at greater risk of SIDS.
* Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also at an increased risk for acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.


If you live with a smoker, your chances of developing lung cancer increase by 20-30 percent.

Is it poison? Here are just a few chemicals in second hand smoke -

Quote:
* arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
* benzene (a chemical found in gasoline)
* beryllium (a toxic metal)
* cadmium (a metal used in batteries)
* chromium (a metallic element)
* ethylene oxide (a chemical used to sterilize medical devices)
* nickel (a metallic element)
* polonium–210 (a chemical element that gives off radiation)
* vinyl chloride (a toxic substance used in plastics manufacture)


Poison -

1. a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.

If cigarette smoke does not qualify under the definition of what a poison is, I don't know what does. So, I ask you again - do parents have the right to poison their children, and do children have the right to be free from being poisoned?


The question is irrelevant, since cigarette smoke is not a poison. That definition is useless. By that definition water is a poison.

Or how about BOTOX therapy?

Botulinum Toxin

Botulinum Toxin is the most toxic substance known to mankind,

Quote:
It is the most acutely toxic substance known, with a median lethal dose of about 1 ng/kg when introduced intravenously[14] and 3 ng/kg when inhaled[15]. This means that, depending on the method of introduction into the body, a mere 90–270 nanograms of botulinum toxin could be enough to kill an average 90 kg (200 lb) person.


Yet we allow people to have injections of this stuff for cosmetic purposes. I guess that means doctors are allowed to poison their patients?

Lots of things contain the same trace chemicals cigarette smoke does. How about people who burn fireplaces? Should people not be able to do that around kids either because smoke, in sufficient concentration is poison?

Finally, your argument is spurious. Even if parents are allowed to engage in an activity that might be peripherally toxic to their children, that does not translate to a right to administer toxic substances on purpose which would have immediate, serious, harmful effects. The right to smoke does not logically create a right to make your kid drink turpentine.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Monte wrote:
What logical fallacies, DFK? Don't be lazy and dismiss my argument - I'm right.


Argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad hominem, bare assertion fallacy.

Monty wrote:
What is the definition of a poison? I listed that.


Is second hand smoke listed as a medical poison?

Monty wrote:
Does cigarette smoke qualify as a poison, under that definition? Yes.


Whether it is or not, and I'm not saying it is, irrelevancy. The medical definition is what matters.

Monty wrote:
Does second hand smoke deliver those toxins to those that breathe them? Yes.


Irrelevant.

Monty wrote:
Therefore, my question, the one you objected so strenuously to, stands. Do parents have the right to poison their children? If you smoke in the presence of other people, you *are* poisoning them. Don't I, as a person, have a right to not be poisoned?


Appeal to emotion, appeal to consequences, affirming the consequent, moralistic fallacy, bare assertion fallacy.

That's just the list at a glance for this post. Your previous one contained more.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:04 pm 
Offline
Home of the Whopper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:51 am
Posts: 6098
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023/NSECTIONGROUP=2


Quote:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, which means it's known to cause cancer in humans.



Quote:
Secondhand smoke has a marked effect on the health of infants and children. They're more vulnerable than adults are because they're still developing physically and generally have higher breathing rates, which means they may inhale greater quantities of secondhand smoke than adults do.

For children who live in households where someone smokes, the effects are worst during the child's first five years, since the child may spend the bulk of that time with a smoking parent or guardian. Ironically, infants are at the highest risk of secondhand smoke from their own mothers. A child who spends just one hour in a very smoky room is inhaling as many dangerous chemicals as if he or she smoked 10 or more cigarettes. And even when parents don't smoke at home or in the car, there can still be negative effects when children are exposed to the tobacco smoke pollution released from the clothing and hair of smoking parents.



:(

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:14 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
LadyKate wrote:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023/NSECTIONGROUP=2


Quote:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, which means it's known to cause cancer in humans.



Quote:
Secondhand smoke has a marked effect on the health of infants and children. They're more vulnerable than adults are because they're still developing physically and generally have higher breathing rates, which means they may inhale greater quantities of secondhand smoke than adults do.

For children who live in households where someone smokes, the effects are worst during the child's first five years, since the child may spend the bulk of that time with a smoking parent or guardian. Ironically, infants are at the highest risk of secondhand smoke from their own mothers. A child who spends just one hour in a very smoky room is inhaling as many dangerous chemicals as if he or she smoked 10 or more cigarettes. And even when parents don't smoke at home or in the car, there can still be negative effects when children are exposed to the tobacco smoke pollution released from the clothing and hair of smoking parents.



:(


Yep, that sucks. But the EPA is not a medical body, and carcinogen is not equivalent with poison.

Plenty of items in daily life contain carcinogens:
http://www.wikicancer.org/page/The+list+of+carcinogens

Complete department of Health and Human Services listing:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?obje ... 709CB4C932

Quote:
Acetaldehyde
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Adriamycin® (Doxorubicin Hydrochloride)
Aflatoxins
Alcoholic Beverage Consumption
2-Aminoanthraquinone
o-Aminoazotoluene
4-Aminobiphenyl
1-Amino-2,4-dibromoanthraquinone
1-Amino-2-methylanthraquinone
Amitrole
o-Anisidine Hydrochloride
Arsenic Compounds, Inorganic
Asbestos Note: correction in Substance Profile (posted February 13, 2009)
Azacitidine
Azathioprine
Benzene
Benzidine and Dyes Metabolized to Benzidine
Benzidine
Dyes Metabolized to Benzidine
Benzotrichloride
Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds
Bromodichloromethane
2,2-bis(Bromomethyl)-1,3-propanediol (Technical Grade)
1,3-Butadiene
1,4-Butanediol Dimethylsulfonate (Myleran®)
Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)
Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Ceramic Fibers (Respirable Size)
Chlorambucil
Chloramphenicol
Chlorendic Acid
Chlorinated Paraffins (C12, 60% Chlorine)
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea
bis(Chloroethyl) Nitrosourea
Chloroform
bis(Chloromethyl) Ether and Technical-Grade Chloromethyl Methyl Ether
3-Chloro-2-methylpropene
4-Chloro-o-phenylenediamine
Chloroprene
p-Chloro-o-toluidine and p-Chloro-o-toluidine Hydrochloride
Chlorozotocin
Chromium Hexavalent Compounds
C.I. Basic Red 9 Monohydrochloride
Cisplatin
Coal Tars and Coal Tar Pitches
Cobalt Sulfate
Coke Oven Emissions
p-Cresidine
Cupferron
Cyclophosphamide
Cyclosporin A
Dacarbazine
Danthron (1,8-Dihydroxyanthraquinone)
2,4-Diaminoanisole Sulfate
2,4-Diaminotoluene
Diazoaminobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide)
2,3-Dibromo-1-propanol
tris(2,3-Dibromopropyl) Phosphate
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3´-Dichlorobenzidine and 3,3´-Dichlorobenzidine Dihydrochloride
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride)
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
1,3-Dichloropropene (Technical Grade)
Diepoxybutane
Diesel Exhaust Particulates
Diethyl Sulfate
Diethylstilbestrol
Diglycidyl Resorcinol Ether
3,3´-Dimethoxybenzidine and Dyes Metabolized to 3,3´-Dimethoxybenzidine
3,3´-Dimethoxybenzidine
Dyes Metabolized to 3,3´-Dimethoxybenzidine
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
3,3´-Dimethylbenzidine and Dyes Metabolized to 3,3´-Dimethylbenzidine
3,3´-Dimethylbenzidine
Dyes Metabolized to 3,3´-Dimethylbenzidine
Dimethylcarbamoyl Chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Dimethyl Sulfate
Dimethylvinyl Chloride
1,4-Dioxane
Disperse Blue 1
Epichlorohydrin
Erionite
Estrogens, Steroidal
Ethylene Oxide
Ethylene Thiourea
di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Ethyl Methanesulfonate
Formaldehyde (Gas)
Furan
Glass Wool (Respirable Size)
Glycidol
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis C
Heterocyclic Amines
2-Amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (MEIQ)
2-Amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MEIQx)
2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (IQ)
2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethylphosphoramide
Human Papillomaviruses: Some Genital-Mucosal Types
Hydrazine and Hydrazine Sulfate
Hydrazobenzene
Ionizing Radiation
X-Radiation and Gamma Radiation
Neutrons
Radon
Thorium Dioxide
Iron Dextran Complex
Isoprene
Kepone® (Chlordecone)
Lead and Lead Compounds
Lindane and Other Hexachlorocyclohexane Isomers
Melphalan
Methoxsalen with Ultraviolet A Therapy (PUVA)
2-Methylaziridine (Propylenimine)
4,4´-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
4,4´-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethyl)benzenamine
4,4´-Methylenedianiline and its Dihydrochloride Salt
Methyleugenol
Methyl Methanesulfonate
N-Methyl-N´-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine
Metronidazole
Michler's Ketone (4,4'-(Dimethylamino)benzophenone)
Mineral Oils (Untreated and Mildly Treated)
Mirex
Mustard Gas
Naphthalene
2-Naphthylamine
Nickel Compounds and Metallic Nickel
Nickel Compounds
Metallic Nickel
Nitrilotriacetic Acid
o-Nitroanisole
Nitroarenes (selected)
1,6-Dinitropyrene
1,8-Dinitropyrene
6-Nitrochrysene
1-Nitropyrene
4-Nitropyrene
Nitrobenzene
Nitrofen (2,4-Dichlorophenyl-p-nitrophenyl Ether)
Nitrogen Mustard Hydrochloride
Nitromethane
2-Nitropropane
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosonornicotine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
N-Nitrososarcosine
Norethisterone
Ochratoxin A
4,4´-Oxydianiline
Oxymetholone
Phenacetin and Analgesic Mixtures Containing Phenacetin
Phenacetin
Analgesic Mixtures Containing Phenacetin
Phenazopyridine Hydrochloride
Phenolphthalein
Phenoxybenzamine Hydrochloride
Phenytoin
Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, 15 Listings
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[j]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Dibenz[a,h]acridine
Dibenz[a,j]acridine
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole
Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
5-Methylchrysene
Procarbazine Hydrochloride
Progesterone
1,3-Propane Sultone
ß-Propiolactone
Propylene Oxide
Propylthiouracil
Reserpine
Safrole
Selenium Sulfide
Silica, Crystalline (Respirable Size)
Soots
Streptozotocin
Strong Inorganic Acid Mists Containing Sulfuric Acid
Styrene-7,8-oxide
Sulfallate
Tamoxifen
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD); "Dioxin"
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
Tetrafluoroethylene
Tetranitromethane
Thioacetamide
4,4´-Thiodianiline
Thiotepa
Thiourea
Tobacco Related Exposures
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Smokeless Tobacco
Tobacco Smoking
Toluene Diisocyanate
o-Toluidine and o-Toluidine Hydrochloride
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
Ultraviolet Radiation Related Exposures
Solar Radiation
Sunlamps or Sunbeds, Exposure to
Broad-Spectrum Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation
Ultraviolet A Radiation
Ultraviolet B Radiation
Ultraviolet C Radiation
Urethane
Vinyl Bromide
Vinyl Chloride
4-Vinyl-1-cyclohexene Diepoxide
Vinyl Fluoride
Wood Dust


You'll note some things in there such as sunlight, wood dust, nickel, x-rays, and alcohol.

A number of those substances, as demonstrated by the previous link, are in common household items or medications.

Should we ban those too?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Smoking around kids
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:28 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Khross wrote:
There are consequences to everything, and maybe, just maybe, if we let people suffer the consequences of their own actions without government intervention at every corner ... MAYBE people might get a clue.



Very much this again!

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:29 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
More to the point, are parents who allow their children out in the sun, near sawdust, to handle coinage, or apply rubbing alcohol poisoning them?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:30 pm 
Offline
Home of the Whopper
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:51 am
Posts: 6098
I think I've got the point ya'll.
I still don't like it, and I still don't agree with it, but I do understand where you guys are coming from.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:34 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
LadyKate wrote:
I think I've got the point ya'll.
I still don't like it, and I still don't agree with it, but I do understand where you guys are coming from.


No one's asking you to agree that smoking around your kids is a good idea or totally harmless. We're just pointing out the problems of trying to regulate it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:36 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
LadyKate wrote:
I think I've got the point ya'll.
I still don't like it, and I still don't agree with it, but I do understand where you guys are coming from.


Eh, I was directing my response (even though quoting you) more at Monty.

Regardless, education is the key. Flights above 30,000 feet expose you to as much radiation as an X-ray, for example. X-rays are known human carcinogens. People don't know this stuff, they just jump at the more visceral.

We could put kids in rubber rooms, except if the rubber is augmented with urythane they could get cancer.... :P



Aslo, what DE said just now.

Edit: futhermore we get to the failure of the populace as a whole to really grasp what a carcinogen means: an increased risk of cancer. It does not mean you will get cancer.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 238 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group