To borrow a well-used phrase, if you hate America so much, why don’t you leave?

ETS comes from the dilution of sidestream smoke produced by smoldering cigarettes and from the small residues of mainstream smoke (MS) exhaled by active smokers. Generated and existing under much different conditions, these different smokes have some similarities but marked differences in chemical and physical composition and behaviour. All comprise a gas phase and small respirable suspended particles (RSP). These particles in turn, may contain at various times different amount of water and other volatile components that may exchange with the gas phase.
Mainstream smoke — inhaled directly by smokers — is concentrated and confined to the moist environment of mouth, throat, and lung. Its higher gas-phase concentrations favour larger respirable particles that condense and retain more water and volatiles. By contrast, ordinary ETS is over 100,000 times more diluted, with much lower humidity and extremely low concentrations of volatiles. Evaporation is faster from ETS particles which — within fraction of seconds from their generation — attain sizes 50 to 100 times smaller in mass and volume than their mainstream counterparts. As ETS ages, it undergoes oxidative and photochemical transformation, polymerization from loss of water and volatiles, reactions with other environmental components, differential absorption to environmental surfaces, and other changes (NAS,1986; USSG,1986; USEPA,1992c; Guerin et al., 1987; Baker and Proctor, 1990). The reducing capacity and free radicals of MS are lost within minutes (Schmeltz et al., 1977, Tanigawa et at.. 1994), and ETS is considerably less cytotoxic than inhaled MS (Sonnenfeld and Wilson,1987).
Of the several thousand components identified in mainstream smoke, only 100 or so have been detected in sidestream smoke under Field conditions, due to extreme dilutions. Because of even greater dilution, only about 20 ETS components have been identified directly under field conditions. In natural settings, most ETS components are below the sensitivity of current analytical capabilities (Guerin et al.,1987; Baker and Proctor.1990).
Compilers of ETS reports from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1986), the U.S. Surgeon General (USSG, 1986), and the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1992c) have been forced to infer the presence of ETS components by proxy, based on the composition of the sidestream smoke from which ETS primarily derives.
Nominally, then, ETS and mainstream smoke may share some components, but their chemical and physical differences are substantial. Moreover, the presence of most ETS components can only be postulated because they are beyond material detection. Also, the chemical and biologic reactivity of ETS is less than that for the MS that active smokers inhale, because of the loss of free radicals, other quenching, and absorption losses during dilution and aging.
ESTIMATING ETS EXPOSURE
A major limitation of epidemiologic studies on ETS has been the unreliable estimates of the dose, which compound the uncertainties of personal or proxy recall of the intensity, frequency, and duration of exposures over individual lifetimes. Even the simple dichotomous classification of exposed and non-exposed subjects presents recognized uncertainties, such as those deriving from the self-classification of some smokers as nonsmokers or the propensity to exaggerate exposure estimates by publicity-sensitized patients (USEPA, 1992c; Lee, 1992, 1993). On comparatively more solid grounds, a range of probably momentary exposures to ETS can be inferred from physical and chemical derivations. These inferences are also insufficient to determine cumulative exposures, but raise compelling doubts about the reliability and meaning of epidemiologic estimates.
On the basis of extrapolations from sidestream and mainstream smoke data, the National Academy of Sciences calculated that for nicotine alone the difference in peak inhalation concentrations between smokers and ETS-exposed nonsmokers varies between 57,000- and 7,000,000 fold (NAS, 1986). Dose estimates based on body fluid concentrations of nicotine or cotinine yield higher values, but depend on environmental and pharmacokinetic assumptions of unlikely validity (USEPA, 1992c; USOSHA, 1994). They also depend on a set of equally dubious systematic assumptions as listed by the National Research Council: ” Current smoking patterns reflect past patterns. Cotinine or nicotine concentrations… are linearly correlated to recent exposures to ETS and to the carcinogens in ETS among non- smokers. All subjects in the various studies began to be exposed to ETS at the same time and have continued to be exposed at the same rate throughout the follow-up period….” (NAS, 1986, p. 290).
Estimates of exposure to other ETS components are even more problematic because of the numerous sources external to ETS. For instance, plasma concentrations of volatile organics in nonsmokers appear to be as much as two-thirds of the corresponding levels in active smokers (Angerer et al., 1992; Brugnone et al, 1992; Perbellini et al., 1988) — an indication of significant sources other than tobacco combustion (Ritcher et al., 1994; Ong et al., 1994).
By utilizing surrogate sidestream smoke values, conceivable ETS exposure has been compared with current federal standards of permissible occupational exposure to several smoke components. Considering an unventilated room of 100 m3 (3533 cubic feet), the number of cigarettes that would have to be burned before reaching official threshold limit values varies among 1170 for methylchloride to 13,300 for benzene to 222,000 for benzo(a) pyrene to 1,000,000 for toluene (Gori and Mantel, 1991).
As well as what is said uyp following, damn near all secondhand bullshit is disproven and was debunked a while ago. Go to the page Forces.org to look it up. It was made my NON-SMOKERS in an effort to suport free speech because stupidass laws are being made up. It shows facts even from the anti smoking campaigns that disprove nearly all of the information. READ IT U STUPID SON OF A BITCH AND LEARN SOMETHING SCXIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE FOR A CHANGE INSTEAD OF BEING ALLOWED TO BE FED AND HAVE UR FUCKING LIBRERTY AND FREEDOM TAKEN AWAY FROM STUPID FATASS NAZIS. And yes, Nazis were the first ones to implement anti smoking movements. Read this- axctually read this Dennis. And everyone else. Learn something, for most of us still live in the US, and we are STILL free to do whatever we damn well please as long as it doesnt hurt others. Learn something so you can stand up for the smokers and say the facts. Stand up for freedom pursuit of happiness and America.

ETS comes from the dilution of sidestream smoke produced by smoldering cigarettes and from the small residues of mainstream smoke (MS) exhaled by active smokers. Generated and existing under much different conditions, these different smokes have some similarities but marked differences in chemical and physical composition and behaviour. All comprise a gas phase and small respirable suspended particles (RSP). These particles in turn, may contain at various times different amount of water and other volatile components that may exchange with the gas phase.
Mainstream smoke — inhaled directly by smokers — is concentrated and confined to the moist environment of mouth, throat, and lung. Its higher gas-phase concentrations favour larger respirable particles that condense and retain more water and volatiles. By contrast, ordinary ETS is over 100,000 times more diluted, with much lower humidity and extremely low concentrations of volatiles. Evaporation is faster from ETS particles which — within fraction of seconds from their generation — attain sizes 50 to 100 times smaller in mass and volume than their mainstream counterparts. As ETS ages, it undergoes oxidative and photochemical transformation, polymerization from loss of water and volatiles, reactions with other environmental components, differential absorption to environmental surfaces, and other changes (NAS,1986; USSG,1986; USEPA,1992c; Guerin et al., 1987; Baker and Proctor, 1990). The reducing capacity and free radicals of MS are lost within minutes (Schmeltz et al., 1977, Tanigawa et at.. 1994), and ETS is considerably less cytotoxic than inhaled MS (Sonnenfeld and Wilson,1987).
Of the several thousand components identified in mainstream smoke, only 100 or so have been detected in sidestream smoke under Field conditions, due to extreme dilutions. Because of even greater dilution, only about 20 ETS components have been identified directly under field conditions. In natural settings, most ETS components are below the sensitivity of current analytical capabilities (Guerin et al.,1987; Baker and Proctor.1990).
Compilers of ETS reports from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1986), the U.S. Surgeon General (USSG, 1986), and the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1992c) have been forced to infer the presence of ETS components by proxy, based on the composition of the sidestream smoke from which ETS primarily derives.
Nominally, then, ETS and mainstream smoke may share some components, but their chemical and physical differences are substantial. Moreover, the presence of most ETS components can only be postulated because they are beyond material detection. Also, the chemical and biologic reactivity of ETS is less than that for the MS that active smokers inhale, because of the loss of free radicals, other quenching, and absorption losses during dilution and aging.
ESTIMATING ETS EXPOSURE
A major limitation of epidemiologic studies on ETS has been the unreliable estimates of the dose, which compound the uncertainties of personal or proxy recall of the intensity, frequency, and duration of exposures over individual lifetimes. Even the simple dichotomous classification of exposed and non-exposed subjects presents recognized uncertainties, such as those deriving from the self-classification of some smokers as nonsmokers or the propensity to exaggerate exposure estimates by publicity-sensitized patients (USEPA, 1992c; Lee, 1992, 1993). On comparatively more solid grounds, a range of probably momentary exposures to ETS can be inferred from physical and chemical derivations. These inferences are also insufficient to determine cumulative exposures, but raise compelling doubts about the reliability and meaning of epidemiologic estimates.
On the basis of extrapolations from sidestream and mainstream smoke data, the National Academy of Sciences calculated that for nicotine alone the difference in peak inhalation concentrations between smokers and ETS-exposed nonsmokers varies between 57,000- and 7,000,000 fold (NAS, 1986). Dose estimates based on body fluid concentrations of nicotine or cotinine yield higher values, but depend on environmental and pharmacokinetic assumptions of unlikely validity (USEPA, 1992c; USOSHA, 1994). They also depend on a set of equally dubious systematic assumptions as listed by the National Research Council: ” Current smoking patterns reflect past patterns. Cotinine or nicotine concentrations… are linearly correlated to recent exposures to ETS and to the carcinogens in ETS among non- smokers. All subjects in the various studies began to be exposed to ETS at the same time and have continued to be exposed at the same rate throughout the follow-up period….” (NAS, 1986, p. 290).
Estimates of exposure to other ETS components are even more problematic because of the numerous sources external to ETS. For instance, plasma concentrations of volatile organics in nonsmokers appear to be as much as two-thirds of the corresponding levels in active smokers (Angerer et al., 1992; Brugnone et al, 1992; Perbellini et al., 1988) — an indication of significant sources other than tobacco combustion (Ritcher et al., 1994; Ong et al., 1994).
By utilizing surrogate sidestream smoke values, conceivable ETS exposure has been compared with current federal standards of permissible occupational exposure to several smoke components. Considering an unventilated room of 100 m3 (3533 cubic feet), the number of cigarettes that would have to be burned before reaching official threshold limit values varies among 1170 for methylchloride to 13,300 for benzene to 222,000 for benzo(a) pyrene to 1,000,000 for toluene (Gori and Mantel, 1991).
As well as what is said uyp following, damn near all secondhand bullshit is disproven and was debunked a while ago. Go to the page Forces.org to look it up. It was made my NON-SMOKERS in an effort to suport free speech because stupidass laws are being made up. It shows facts even from the anti smoking campaigns that disprove nearly all of the information. READ IT U STUPID SON OF A BITCH AND LEARN SOMETHING SCXIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE FOR A CHANGE INSTEAD OF BEING ALLOWED TO BE FED AND HAVE UR FUCKING LIBRERTY AND FREEDOM TAKEN AWAY FROM STUPID FATASS NAZIS. And yes, Nazis were the first ones to implement anti smoking movements. Read this- axctually read this Dennis. And everyone else. Learn something, for most of us still live in the US, and we are STILL free to do whatever we damn well please as long as it doesnt hurt others. Learn something so you can stand up for the smokers and say the facts. Stand up for freedom pursuit of happiness and America.

So-called ‘progressives’, (new-speak for socialists) Want to control everything. I have yet to see one person who agrees with this ban do these simple things:

1. Show me proof, not by consensus, but by scientific fact that have been observed independantly by several researchers that anyone has suffered any ill-effects from second-hand cigarette smoke. Now we have all heard the advocates for these laws quote so-called ’studies’ or ‘independant studies’ show that …. but there is no CLINICAL evidence.

2. Explain why a person of legal age can not decide, with full-knowledge of the risk involved, where they want to work. Crab fishermen work in a dangerous environment. Automobile mechanics work with greasy cars and that is a carcinogen. People working in plastics factories work in environments that have high-levels of harmfull vapors. But as long as the company does something to mitigate the vapors and vent them outside, that is allowed. I drive on the road all day fixing customers’ computers and inhale exhaust fumes. It is a risk I take. I could work in a different field.

3. If non-smokers want to go to a smoke free environment, then why not start a business of your own that is smoke free? If there were such a demand, trust me, they would be everywhere. If there is a demand for something, and in our capitalistic society you can make a profit doing it… it will be done. So tell me, if you want a smoke-free place then why not allow business owners to choose one way or another?

I live in Bardstown, KY. Afriend of mine opened a jazz club on 3rd street called Jazzy’s. It was smoke free. He had great food, live music that was awesome, but he’s out of business now because, and he admits it, he did not want to work in a place where smoking was allowed, but he could not get the customers to come in. There weren’t enough customers. LET me repeat… he could not get enough customers to come into his non-smoking business. Yet, around the corner at Talbot Tavern, that place allows smoking, has mediocre food, live music and has been in business since the 1800’s.

Prove that smokers cause health costs to go up. Explain why a smoker has to pay higher premiums for life-insurance than non-smokers. If your rates are lower, then how does a smoker’s choice raise YOUR rates. It seems it only raises their own. An insurance company manages risk. They take the risk and you pay for it. They make money doing it, also. After a long period of time they know that a certain percentage of people go to hospitals for various reasons. They do not know if they are smoking related or not, or even if the person going in for illness xxxx even smokes. I know because I used to work at Humana, a nationwide health insurance company based in Louisville, KY. Their actuarials do not consider smoking or not. Do smokers go to the hospital more than non-smokers? Again, no scientific data to support it. I have been smoking for over 30 years and I rarely, if ever go to the doctor. Facts are, insurance companies do not consider the smoking issue in setting their premiums. And there is no scientific data to support the claim that smoking results in more vists to the hospital or more costly visits to the hospital.

When I was a kid, they banned cycimates, a sugar substitute, because they said in large quantities it kills laboratory rats. They banned freon 32 because they said it was destroying the ozone layer in the atmoshere…. no they say that they calculated wrong and have no proof what effect, IF ANY freon has on the ozone layer. They banned DDT back in the ’60s because somone showed a study that it was making the eggshells of birds weaker and causing fewer births of wild birds. Now it has been proven that it did no such thing and it has also been learned the researcher hid data that proves DDT was the problem because, “she felt sure it was the cause” and wanted to save face. No people in 3rd-world countries are dieing of malaria because one of the most effective mosquito insecticides has been banned. They also once thought the earth was flat.

And as far as what is a right and what is a privilage goes… I have a right to do whatever I want whereever or whenever I want as long as it does not impose on the freedom of others. It is called freedom.

A privilage, on the otherhand, is something doled out by governemnts or controlled by governments and that is the real issue here. Pretty soon if these socialists have their way everything will be a privilage. The right to have more than one daughter, the right to believe in whatever religion you want and to practice it freely… etc…. Does China or the Soviet Union ring a bell? Which is why I started my post the way I did.

There are many of these out thier. Stop kidding yourselves and quit smoking for the good of yourself and the world.

The increased lifetime risk of permanent hearing damage from 60 minutes exposure to sound above 85 decibels – well below the sound level of the averaqge rock concert or dance club – is 80%. When I point this out to the anti-smokiing-choice activists, they say that people have a choice about whether they wish to go into these places or not. Strange how that does not apply to places that allow smoking.

Sure, smoking might kill you in 30 years if you are a smoker but, you could get killed by a drunk driver–tonight…and it is much more likely.

Also, all of this second hand smoke stuff is hilarious. If anyone writing on this blog drives a car (and I’m willing to bet that most do)you are putting more carcinogens and poison into our air than smokers could ever do. Example: Put a person in a closed garage with a car running and see how long they survive…45 minutes? Now, put a person in a closed garage with a smoker..and see how long it takes for that person to die of second hand smoke….:)