I don't believe it. I went thru a whole work day without smoking.
No, I ain't trying to quit smoking. My lighta broke and I was forced to not smoke for 5 hours. I definitely wanted a smoke. But it's hard getting a light from othas. Especially when you can't tell who smokes in a restroom.
But afta work, I bought a new lighta immediately and I spent lots of time enjoying my cigs outside. A cig was the only thang on my mind for most of the work day.
When I was told if I want to go (back home) in the 8th inning or stay, I said "I'm going." Oh I left all right...left to get a new lighta, have some cigs, and feel like myself again . lol
If smoking bans didn't exist, it would be a lot more easier to meet more smokers in public at a ballpark. And of course when someone IS smoking, he/she is usually outta sight for understandable reasons.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Where do antis get dis crap from? I guess there's no "SHS toxicity" in commuter trains and buses? Planes can't have the fictional toxicity. You can't smoke on those. lol
Second-hand Smoke Toxicity In Cars: Myth Into Fact
Posted on: Monday, 12 April 2010, 13:57 CDT
There is no evidence to support the fact that smoking in cars is 23 times more toxic than in other indoor environments, states an analysis article in CMAJ ().
The article, by Australian researchers, describes how a local media report of an unsourced statistic — that "second-hand smoke was "23 times more toxic in a vehicle than in a home"" — led to widespread reporting of the figure in international media and peer-reviewed literature.
However, there appears to be no scientific evidence to support this claim. "In a subsequent exhaustive search of the relevant literature, we failed to locate any scientific source for this comparison," write Mr. Ross MacKenzie, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia and coauthor. "Given that the issue of banning smoking in cars is gaining traction internationally, use of this media-friendly tobacco control 'fact' presents potential problems of credibility. "
The 23 times estimate has evolved from being a brief quotation in a US newspaper to entering the academic mainstream in 1998 when a Tobacco Control editorial closely copied the previous quote. Both the newspaper report and the editorial were then cited in an issue of Nicotine and Tobacco Research.
"The biggest danger of inaccurately interpreting research on smoking in cars for the sake of a snappy media sound bite is to lose favor with an overwhelmingly supportive public and to provide ammunition for opponents of tobacco control," write the authors.
The authors conclude that researchers and organizations should stop using the 23 times more toxic "fact" because of the lack of evidence in scientific literature. "Instead, advocating of significant health risk and that vulnerable children who cannot remove themselves from this smoky environment must be protected."in cars should simply state that exposure to second-hand smoke in cars poses a