It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by toochaos4u
That's it! I am going to file to have old woman perfume banned from inside spaces. It is dangerous to my health as it causes allergies and breathing problems for me.
[edit on 30/1/2009 by toochaos4u]
Originally posted by Nineteen
Just another irritation in a long list of bureaucratic self righteous prats trying to outdo one another's egos in an effort to feel more special than the next person.
Originally posted by wolf241e
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
Let me be clear...I'm a smoker and have been forever, but if bans against personal freedoms come into play, you don't punish the citizen, you go after the source that would eliminate the need for such bans.
When people use dryer sheets, they are coating their cloths with a thin film of artificial chemical perfumes. Just like other perfumes, a person’s sensitivity to these perfumes decreases over time to the point where they don’t even notice how potent these artificial fragrance chemicals are.
None of this would be interesting if it weren’t for the fact that these fragrance chemical are extremely toxic chemicals. They are known carcinogens. They cause liver damage and cancer in mammals. In fact, the only way they are approved for use in consumer products is that there is an underlying, but false assumption by the FDA and other regulator agencies that cosmetic products such as shampoo, deodorants, creams, laundry detergents, and soaps don’t pose a health risk because their chemicals are not absorbed through the skin. In other words, there is a much lower threshold of danger assumed with cosmetic products versus foods and beverages. It is assumed that chemicals put on the skin don’t necessarily penetrate the skin. This assumption is incorrect, however.
An analysis of more than a dozen common household air fresheners found that most contain chemicals that may affect hormones and reproductive development, particularly in babies, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said today. The federal government does not currently test air fresheners for safety or require manufacturers to meet any specific safety standards. The study offers both consumers and officials new information on the risks certain air fresheners pose.
The Associated Press has done a study, and they're reporting today that all kinds of chemicals are found in your tap water, and this time we're not talking about lead, mercury, pesticides, synthetic hormones, or anything like that.
In the first ever national survey examining the health effects of nurses' exposure to chemicals, the groups surveyed 1,500 nurses from 50 states about their exposure to 11 common health care chemicals, including anesthetic gases, hand disinfectants, cleaning substances, latex, pharmaceutical products including chemotherapy and antiretroviral drugs, mercury, personal care products such as shampoo and soap, and sterilization chemicals.
In addition to these known or potential toxins, nurses are also habitually exposed to radiation. In spite of a recommendation from the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention in 2002, no comprehensive study of toxic workplace exposure in nurses has ever been conducted, let alone investigations into the health effects of cumulative exposure to this wide variety of toxins.
Given the fact that just about everything you put on your skin gets absorbed into your bloodstream, it is interesting that there is a complete lack of regulation of cancer-causing ingredients in skin care products. There are over 150 toxic cancer-causing ingredients currently used in cosmetic products alone. According to federal law, products containing cancer-causing substances should carry a written warning. But the FDA does not enforce this law with cosmetics or personal care products. Consumers are left to purchase these products at their own risk, and as a result they are being harmed by them.
The concerns regarding health stem from the fact that though cotton uses only 2.4% of the world's
agricultural acreage, its cultivation involves 25% of the world's pesticide use, more than any other crop. Most of these are insecticides, but fungicide is another fraction of the total. Also, consider that it takes about one-third of a pound of pesticides and fertilizers to grow enough conventional cotton for just one T-shirt.
In many cases, these poisonous chemicals are applied by spraying from the air, which means they can be
carried and spread by the wind and breathed by people living nearby. It probably is no coincidence that Texans near Lubbock have a high cancer rate, while Lubbock happens to be the world's largest area of cotton cultivation.
Is it possible that wearing a bra can actually cause cancer? Studies show that this is a very real possibility. The reason is that regularly wearing a bra prevents lymph drainage and circulation, which can greatly increase the possibility of developing breast cancer.
Originally posted by dreamsnatcher
reply to post by Enthralled Fan
How about RFID tags in your packs that can be tracked and if you live in the city they come bust down youreur door and tazer your ass and give you a ticket. We do need the revenue.
Originally posted by Harassment101
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.4
Secondhand smoke causes almost 50,000 deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year, including approximately 3,400 from lung cancer and 22,700-69,600 from heart disease.5
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.6
When you get into an auto accident, you might die right away, second hand smoke death is slow and not pleasant. Why should you have to be ill, or die from second hand smoke?
Live healthy, eat right, but die because someone else has a smoking addition. It's all a drug addition, smokers just have lot's of other addicts, but their issues kill the same way, just slower.
[edit on 29-1-2009 by Harassment101]
Originally posted by zysin5
I wonder whats next? How about we Bann people from being out in the sunlight. As its well known that the sun can cause Cancer..
Lets build a big dome, and shut out the DEADLY rays of the sun..
As its not my choice to get hit by sunrays on a daily basis!
I could go on and on.
Yet this has nothing to do with peoples health.. Non smokers really don't give a damn about health.. Lets be real here.. non smokers are personally inconvenienced.
If this was about health.. Then much would be different..
So I say ban the suns light from Earth.. And its dangerous to the children!
And will cause cancer!!
Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
And how does one soaking up the sun AFFECT YOU HEALTH WISE?
The problem here is that YOU think we have some personal agenda to send all smokers to oblivion . While for some that may be the case, most of us posing against it just do not want to have to deal with it at all. Thanks to many laws today, we do not have to deal with it.
While I still always think there should be exceptions to the rule, such as concerts and bars.
Originally posted by daddyroo45
Banned smoking in your own home.Jeeze whats next...
The sex police.
I can see it now sex will be restricted to the hours of 12 midnite to 2 am on everyother Tuesday night. Anyone caught comming in to work with a satisfied look on their face will be fined $1000.
The government has stepped way beyond physco