Hey anti smoking bullies....I told you so!!

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


Please, show me the statistics.....because statistics can be manipulated to fit any outcome.

I'll go by the fact that I have been all over this world, live near Indian reservation etc where fire is a way of life and been raised in a household that was always around fires etc, have not seen people dropping from daily exposure . Look around you, where are all these sick and dying people?




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I can see both sides of this and it's the same old thing. While you fight with each other the people causing the largest part of the problem are left to get on with it. I can't see the little people coming together to fight against the big companies, at least not until everyone is suffering.

@ OP, enjoy your smoke and have one for me. I stopped smoking about 3 months ago for health reasons, I'm using e cigs now and if we have a power cut I'll be well messed up.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I am sorry, I think smoking should have as many pitfalls as possible. Decades ago my mother passed away because of it.

So many people at the time thought it was ok, movies, commercials, everywhere !

No, the more you can restrict it, the innocent victim won't be able to try it out. So important for people not to even get near the poison and that means children near that smoke etc.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


I'm not talking about any statistics in particular, I'm talking about statistics as a mathematical science.

For instance:
"I'm 100 years old and I'm not dead!" does not invalidate the fact that the average life expectancy in the USA is 78.

"I smoked 120 cigarettes a day and I was killed in a car accident!" does not disprove the statistical causal relation between smoking and cancer.

In this case:
"I've never seen anyone die of X disease and they all had wood fires!" does not disprove the fact that wood smoke contains harmful compounds.

In reality, the ban has been enacted because of weather conditions on a specific day which will cause any extra smoke to pool in a specific area. When the weather passes, the ban will be lifted.

This is not like an average day of wood smoke for the people in that area. It is worse than usual for them.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


I tried the e ones, need to research some more, find one that satisfies. Right now I keep myself to 3or 4 a day unless its a night out..

I keep trying, but I just love it so much!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by 0mage
 

We are so childish for wanting fire a natural process, created by NATURE, but they aren't childish for wanting their cars and everything else they use daily that creates pollution. Unnatural processes that are destroying the earth and lungs more than my fireplace or cigs ever could.


The automobile requirements are being tightened as fast as they can without sinking the entire auto industry. It takes time to change the technology to meet new standards.

Cars and transport trucks are essential for the workforce of this country. A fireplace is not.

If you want to compare cars and fireplaces, then the fireplace can go the way of the car. Instead of having no burning days, fireplaces can meet EPA standards all year long and be designed to retain all ash and not release pollution. Which means everyone would have to get a new wood stove or fireplace.

Most likely, it is easier and cheaper to just take the day off.

If people WERE really losing freedom, that would be the way the government would go. You now have to take out a second mortgage to install a new fireplace, and to have it inspected regularly, just like the car.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by thetiler
 


We are all going to die, no one has ever escaped it.

Adults have the right to choose their poisons.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Read my above posts on the the requirement if some people to have fires, especially for economical reasons.

Other forms of heating are more damaging.

It is not up to the government to decide who can afford alternate heat or for whom a fire is necessary.

Just like it us not the governments right to take my gun or my big gulp.

edit on 2-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Heat and food are necessary not cars, iPads, jewelry and many other luxuries that cause massive amounts of pollution to produce and run.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


Where do statistics come from?

They come from studies, studies come from observations, observations can be subjective or objective.

My observations lend to statistical evidence that fires are not causing the damage people claim they are.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


It is not the amount of smoke or pollution that is the culprit, it is the particles itself. Wood burning releases the most toxic particles of them all, the cause heart disease and cancer.

Heart disease is the number one death of Indians.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnnKoontz
California is the worse. How can the call themselves Liberals, when all they do is take away people's rights? You can get drugged up and have all the orgies you want, but don't light a fire to keep yourselves warm.
edit on 1-1-2013 by AnnKoontz because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-1-2013 by AnnKoontz because: (no reason given)


This is because, as Churchill once said, the new fascists will not be called fascists at all....



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


You're wrong.

Your sample size is not large enough, your experiment has not been repeated nor has it been peer reviewed.

You have not sampled a random or representative portion of the population, your sample is close knit on a global scale.

You have not accounted for or negated the effects of environment or genetics in your study.

You have not provided statistical analysis for your results.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Absolutely they can decide what form of fuel people can use. It is not your air, it is everyone's air. Just like it isn't your road, it is public roads, and it is not your water, it is everyone's water. And they can dictate what pollutions you release and when.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Dispo
 


Where do statistics come from?

They come from studies, studies come from observations, observations can be subjective or objective.

My observations lend to statistical evidence that fires are not causing the damage people claim they are.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Start there



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Unfortunately, none of this is even about producing heat. It is about the UN Agenda 21 and controlling the resources of the planet. The monsters who want to control everything for their little Collective Sustainable planning and Development are just interested in depopulation and removing the evil human parasites from the pristine land.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by timetothink
 


Absolutely they can decide what form of fuel people can use. It is not your air, it is everyone's air. Just like it isn't your road, it is public roads, and it is not your water, it is everyone's water. And they can dictate what pollutions you release and when.



Right, but you will allow some other nobodies in high places to determine everything for you and me? That is the fallacy of all this Collectivism and Communism. Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is nothing but Communism in sheep's clothing. They put some pretty Green ribbons around the sheeps' collars for posterity.
edit on 2-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Mother Nature creates many fires and particulates from volcanos etc which are going off everyday.


In the US, the majority of wildfires are caused by humans. In North America, South America, and Africa, humans cause wildfires at 6 times the rate of nature.

Volcanoes cause more cooling than warming, because of the conversion of sulfuric dioxide to sulfuric acid. So if it were volcanoes that produced the most emissions, we would be having a cooling, not a warming.

Humans produce 3 times the emissions of any natural source:

Recent estimates of the relative strength of the three important sources of volatile sulfur (SO2 from fossil fuel combustion ∼78 Tg S/yr, from biomass burning ∼2 Tg S/yr, and from natural sources ∼25 Tg S/yr) suggest an over-whelming effect of the anthropogenic emissions for climate forcing.


JGR



PLUS........there are millions more cars than fireplaces so get off it, shutting down fireplaces doesn't make a damn difference.


what you fail to consider is that this is a local phenomenon, not a national one. The whole nation isn't shutting down fireplaces, just socal for a day until the meterological event is over.

Again, it is not the amount being produced, it is WHAT is being produced. First, wood smoke particles are so small that they get into any house. Unless you can build an air tight fortress, wood smoke gets into your house, or anyone's house.
Woodsmoke is far more dangerous than vehicle smoke. It is more dangerous than vehicle emissions, it is more dangerious than even cigarrettes.
1kg of burned wood produces more carcinogens than 27,000 cigarettes.

Because of its size, wood smoke is 7 times more likely to be inhaled than any other particles in the air.
And wood fuel users are 21% more likely to get cancer than any other fuel.

If inhaled second hand, wood smoke causes damage 40 times longer than cigarettes.

So when events form a dome that doesn't allow these dangerous particles to escape and everyone has to breath them in, THAT is why they put on a temporary ban.

Considering how dangerous it is, you should consider yourselves lucky it is not banned outright.

edit on 2-1-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
double post
edit on 2-1-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Read my above posts on the the requirement if some people to have fires, especially for economical reasons.

Other forms of heating are more damaging.

It is not up to the government to decide who can afford alternate heat or for whom a fire is necessary.

Just like it us not the governments right to take my gun or my big gulp.

edit on 2-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



Yes, exactly, because the real agenda here is to limit our choices under the guise of being sustainable or some idea they have that humans are evil parasites which must be removed from the land. Just because it isn't happening on a federal level doesn't mean it's not happening. If it is local, then likely it is local Agenda 21. That is how they work. They work on individual boards of local governments, to enact policies which reduce our choices locally, and on boards for NGO's and other organizations, to create the illusion of a consensus of opinion.
edit on 2-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)





 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join