harleyrider1978

harleyrider1978

67p

206 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

10 years ago @ The Heritage Foundry - Jindal: Obama ‘Wavin... · 0 replies · 0 points

I got no use for Owebama or Jindal both seem to be the same when it comes right down to it!

10 years ago @ The Heritage Foundry - The Protesters' Cry fo... · 0 replies · +3 points

Obamas to busy strong arming every country in the world to worry about much. He is even financing the so called protestors in the Ukraine along with the EU. This is a power grab but more its to try and keep the global control via the UN together. A Ukraine defection from the EU will likely spell a quick repetition of other countries leaving that socialist nitemare behind and an end to the UN's great world zone experiment!

The EU needs destroyed and the quicker the better for all countries in the world.

10 years ago @ Longmont Times-Call - CVS leads the way on c... · 0 replies · +1 points

As we can all see the END GAME is to first ban car smoking and then follow it up with a ban in the homes,likely using the children for this purpose yet again. Then if they can get their final smoking rates at a certain level tobacco control plans on pushing the government for OUT RIGHT PROHIBITION ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS!

Second Hand/ Third Hand Smoke: Trigger For Outrage –Catalyst For Change?
•Smoke Free Public Places
•Smoke Free Work Places
•Smoke Free Parks/Open Spaces
•Smoke Free Private Transport
•Smoke Free Homes
Positioning Tobacco Endgame In The Post-2015 Development Agenda
UNSustainable Development Goals Or Expanded Millennium Development Goals

Can tobacco control endgame analysis learn anything from …

tobaccocontrolbmj

The thirdhand and second hand smoke MYTHS were created to create public fear and outrage. They are basically telling us that in the above! TRIGGER FOR OUTRAGE!

10 years ago @ Longmont Times-Call - CVS leads the way on c... · 0 replies · +1 points

INSANITY KNOWS NO BOUNDS WITH TOBACCO CONTROL

Study: Third-Hand Smoke Exposure As Deadly As Smoking

Benjamin FearnowFebruary 3, 2014 10:31 AM
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/20...

BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisvil...

The thirdhand smoke scam
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/t...

10 years ago @ Longmont Times-Call - CVS leads the way on c... · 0 replies · +1 points

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

nap.edu

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 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.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

10 years ago @ Longmont Times-Call - CVS leads the way on c... · 0 replies · +1 points

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/167417...

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

10 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Car smoking ban urged:... · 0 replies · +2 points

Simple Ban children! You use them for every control agenda movement you can come up with just as Hitler did!

Perhaps you will want to force the kids to wear Brown Shirts and sing nationalistic German socialist songs next.

Then teach them thru the schools to be good Socialists for the State denying independence and Individual will!

After you've taught them to snitch out everything imaginable they watch their Parents hauled off to a state run reeducation camp like a Quitters Class and force them to intake nicotine via a pharma patch or force inject them with a Chantix drug or even one of the new Vaccines to cure smoking Addiction as you call it!

Ah yes we can expect much from utilizing the Fuhrers handbook on how to create a conformist state to the wills of the state mandates. We are the state and you will submit,we command it!

Except the smokers are hardcore fighters,they do not submit they fight back the same as Winston Churchill did against Hitler and his third reich! Fighting against you the state is no different.

10 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Car smoking ban urged:... · 0 replies · +1 points

The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008 http://www.jacionline.org/article/S00...(07)01954...

.
This is a Swedish study.

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14 http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm

10 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Car smoking ban urged:... · 0 replies · 0 points

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

10 years ago @ The Arbiter: Online - Boise ban may be ‘cl... · 0 replies · 0 points

Mark Twain said it right over a hundred years ago:

“The Moral Statistician.”
Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893

"I don’t want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it.

I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man’s health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years’ indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question.

You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime (which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone), nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all those little vicious enjoyments for fifty years; but then what can you do with it? What use can you put it to? Money can’t save your infinitesimal soul. All the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life; therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment where is the use of accumulating cash?

It won’t do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees, with your ears buried in the cushion, when the contribution-box comes around; and you never give the revenue officers a full statement of your income.

Now you know all these things yourself, don’t you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don’t you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as ornery and unlovable as you are yourselves, by your villainous “moral statistics”?"

Also, Benjamin Franklin said,
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."