Condo bans-Read the comments

[Traver]

The comments are my reason for posting this.

Rob Samouce: Do you really want to become a no-smoking property? » Naples Daily News

 

[Nicko]

This part of the article was interesting -

When someone smokes inside the unit, smoke can permeate the walls and can migrate to the inside of surrounding units.

Some condo buildings must have very poor quality walls. In no building I have ever lived have I ever seen smoke migrating through a wall.

 

[smut peddler]

This is obnoxious, I feel that people should have the freedom to smoke where they want to. I don't care about areas like inside restaurants and whatnot, but if you're paying for a condo, you should probably have a right to smoke on the property. When my friends come over and smoke at my condo (on my back porch), I hear neighbors come outside and loudly sniff, then go back inside. I think they can close windows if they don't want to smell it. I have to smell their dinner every night!

 

[Traver]

This part of the article was interesting -

When someone smokes inside the unit, smoke can permeate the walls and can migrate to the inside of surrounding units.

Some condo buildings must have very poor quality walls. In no building I have ever lived have I ever seen smoke migrating through a wall.

If I was selling a or renting a condo I wouldn't mention that.

 

[dee5]

The comments are great indeed! LOVE the interview about secondhand smoke with France's leading Pulmonologist.

 

[eyebrook]

Hey Guys, glad i dont live in the USA its bad enough here in Spain

 

[Traver]

The comments are great indeed! LOVE the interview about secondhand smoke with France's leading Pulmonologist.

It was the first comment that I found the most usefull.

All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

One of the things I found while looking into the Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin was an article by Siegel:

The third claim Siegel objects to is called third-hand smoking. Some smoking ban advocates say nicotine left on a person’s clothing and skin is deposited on the surfaces away from the smoking area then create vapor that exposes non-smokers to harm. “I think that’s just a gross exaggeration, and the levels of exposure are so small that it’s not creating any meaningful hazard,”

Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Just Smoke

 

[Vocalek]

And in related news... Legislature butts out on request to allow local regulation of outdoor smoking POLL » Naples Daily News

 

[Vocalek]

And the Surgeon General appears to be talking through her Public Health Service hat:

Environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart dis... [Inhal Toxicol. 2006] - PubMed result

Inhal Toxicol. 2006 Mar;18(3):199-210.

Environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease mortality in the United States--a meta-analysis and critique.
Enstrom JE, Kabat GC.
Source
Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA. jenstrom@ucla.edu

Abstract

Several major meta-analyses have concluded that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) by about 25% among never smokers. However, these reviews have excluded a large portion of the epidemiologic evidence on questionable grounds and have been inconsistent in the selection of the results that are included. We conducted an updated meta-analysis and critique of the evidence on ETS exposure and its relationship to death from CHD among never smokers. Our focus is on the U.S. cohort studies, which provide the vast majority of the available evidence. ETS exposure is assessed in terms of spousal smoking, self-reported estimates, and personal monitoring. The epidemiologic results are summarized by means of overall relative risks and dose-response relationships. The methodological issues of publication bias, exposure misclassification, and confounding are discussed. Several large studies indicate that spousal smoking history is a valid measure of relative exposure to ETS, particularly for females. Personal monitoring of nonsmokers indicates that their average ETS exposure from a smoking spouse is equivalent in terms of nicotine exposure to smoking less than 0.1 cigarettes per day. When all relevant studies are included in the meta-analysis and results are appropriately combined, current or ever exposure to ETS, as approximated by spousal smoking, is associated with roughly a 5% increased risk of death from CHD in never smokers. Furthermore, there is no dose-response relationship and no elevated risk associated with the highest level of ETS exposure in males or females. An objective assessment of the available epidemiologic evidence indicates that the association of ETS with CHD death in U.S. never smokers is very weak. Previous assessments appear to have overestimated the strength of the association.

 

[Traver]

And the Surgeon General appears to be talking through her Public Health Service hat:

25% for (ETS) increases the risk of coronary heart disease seems to be a wild exaggeration, Just doesn't make sense for such a small exposure to the chemicals in smoke. I have trouble getting a handle on it because of the difficulty in accounting for social and environmental factors. Not to mention all of the cherry picking that goes on.

 

[Vocalek]

Except for it isn't even 25%, it's 5% which is not statistically significant. Could be due to error.

current or ever exposure to ETS, as approximated by spousal smoking, is associated with roughly a 5% increased risk of death from CHD in never smokers

 

[smut peddler]

25% for (ETS) increases the risk of coronary heart disease seems to be a wild exaggeration, Just doesn't make sense for such a small exposure to the chemicals in smoke. I have trouble getting a handle on it because of the difficulty in accounting for social and environmental factors. Not to mention all of the cherry picking that goes on.

Exactly. That 5% seems more reasonable, but still logically seems high.

 

[Vap0rJay]

I have come to the scientific conclusion all disease, risk, and ultimately death stems from the single act of being born. All smokers, past and present - were at one point - born. In the name of public health, I propose legislation to ban babies, and jail the evil lawbreakers who copulate.

 

[Demarko]

I have come to the scientific conclusion all disease, risk, and ultimately death stems from the single act of being born. All smokers, past and present - were at one point - born. In the name of public health, I propose legislation to ban babies, and jail the evil lawbreakers who copulate.

Be careful what you wish for!

 

[Vap0rJay]

Be careful what you wish for!

lol so true.