tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post4345551854474759441..comments2024-03-27T21:23:40.339-04:00Comments on Chemjobber: Interesting letter on EMF and cell phonesChemjobberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-22375153231150338202014-09-27T22:13:52.325-04:002014-09-27T22:13:52.325-04:00Overheating batteries too.Overheating batteries too.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-26874475369720906332014-09-24T15:34:35.758-04:002014-09-24T15:34:35.758-04:00bw, the vast majority of the time, I value your co...bw, the vast majority of the time, I value your comments, but I can't have you specifically calling people pejoratives, especially with the "you" attached. Chemjobberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-75100426070275021152014-09-24T15:26:19.090-04:002014-09-24T15:26:19.090-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.bad wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-52002277653080494482014-09-24T15:21:20.659-04:002014-09-24T15:21:20.659-04:00bad wolf, how about some civility here? bad wolf, how about some civility here? Chemjobberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-59041382745797762892014-09-24T15:17:12.949-04:002014-09-24T15:17:12.949-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.bad wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-65824993821366647402014-09-24T15:12:35.550-04:002014-09-24T15:12:35.550-04:00Godwin's law! You lose.Godwin's law! You lose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-4384977550784114412014-09-24T15:06:03.371-04:002014-09-24T15:06:03.371-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.bad wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-52809426521406553852014-09-24T14:16:45.639-04:002014-09-24T14:16:45.639-04:00Let me add an equal opportunity correction - I don...Let me add an equal opportunity correction - I don't want a stinky lady anywhere near me either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-62524825743240151992014-09-24T14:11:52.580-04:002014-09-24T14:11:52.580-04:00Yep, and I want the stinky guy to move on. You kn...Yep, and I want the stinky guy to move on. You know, on the basis him being a public nuisance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-33283500799949793402014-09-24T13:41:52.104-04:002014-09-24T13:41:52.104-04:00It's a little thing called "America."...It's a little thing called "America." bad wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-20028548977455911542014-09-24T13:25:04.226-04:002014-09-24T13:25:04.226-04:00"In a park or beach it is likely that smokers..."In a park or beach it is likely that smokers and nonsmokers can avoid each other" - what you are really saying is "if a guy with a cigarette plops on a bench next to you just move on". I don't see it that way at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-70142885160163284862014-09-24T09:11:00.247-04:002014-09-24T09:11:00.247-04:00But the same things are also applicable if you'...But the same things are also applicable if you're next to a homeless person who hasn't bathed in a while, or someone who ate the all-you-can-eat bean burrito fiesta at Chipotle, and we don't ban those activities. In a park or beach it is likely that smokers and nonsmokers can avoid each other, which would mitigate the costs of the behavior without a ban. (Walking around without clothes, for example, exposes lots of people; its costs aren't clear, but there is not a way to mitigate the effects - you won't know where not to look, and probably couldn't even if you did.) Protecting people with severe unhappiness/illness caused by smoking doesn't particularly help, either; there aren't any bans on various foodstuffs in parks or public places, even though for some people, they may cause even more serious hazards (Smoke drifts more than peanut butter, but some people's sensitivities to it don't require high local concentrations for triggering.)<br /><br />Contrast to indoor or very local (20 ft from a door) smoking bans, where 1) people can't avoid the consequences of smokers (they have to work there or be there - government buildings) and 2) those consequences (concentration and exposure time to smoke and its consequent health risks, saturation of clothes and belongings with smoke) are likely to be significant.<br /><br />Whether something is banned depends (or ought to?) on the cost to others of the activity and the facilitiy of avoiding it; avoiding smokers in a park is easy (and even if you can';t the costs are likely to be lower), while at workplaces, the costs are both higher and the costs to avoid it even higher (most people can't leave their jobs to avoid smoking, while smokers could go outside or elsewhere to smoke with much lower costs).Hapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-81284497436984906132014-09-23T18:52:38.365-04:002014-09-23T18:52:38.365-04:00Generally, there are lots of things you can't ...Generally, there are lots of things you can't do in most public places. You can't be naked. You can't be drunk and disorderly. You can't disturb the peace. Potentially, this could lead us down an unpleasant path, but not if people are deliberate and reasonable about the things they're banning. Smoking provides very little benefit to the smoker while causing them a huge amount of harm (which ultimately tends to increase the health care burden for everyone). A large majority of people find smoking to be incredibly gross, to the point that smelling smoke ruins what they're experiencing. It's a case where someone's activities provide no benefit to anyone while actively bothering a lot of people. <br /><br />I think people should be able to express themselves in diverse and wide-ranging ways, which includes having opinions and practices that I hate. I think that kind of diversity is good. But if my body reacts and gags just by standing next to someone, I think that's something different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-50673191329890191052014-09-23T18:03:37.125-04:002014-09-23T18:03:37.125-04:00Ban vehicles. The exhaust makes people sick. See, ...Ban vehicles. The exhaust makes people sick. See, everyone wants to ban something without rational thoughts.JLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09338227785856594196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-91895156634634913812014-09-23T18:01:08.725-04:002014-09-23T18:01:08.725-04:00They are not scientists, they are lawyers.They are not scientists, they are lawyers.JLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09338227785856594196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-24030843357782639172014-09-23T16:27:13.892-04:002014-09-23T16:27:13.892-04:00Fair enough. I guess i could restate that as &quo...Fair enough. I guess i could restate that as "zero to a first approximation."bad wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-15794091612004072822014-09-23T15:55:57.640-04:002014-09-23T15:55:57.640-04:00I can see the purpose to banning smoking in enclos...I can see the purpose to banning smoking in enclosed areas, but I don't see the legitimate purpose in banning it in parks or beaches that can't (in theory) be covered by antilittering laws - there, I assume the pollution burden of cars and trucks would be greater as well. However, numbers on exposure could be gotten if they cared, and numbers would be better than guesses.<br /><br />Of course, since this is about telling smokers to !@&* %$^ and die, I don't think data would help much.Hapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-80283118318714577802014-09-23T15:26:55.442-04:002014-09-23T15:26:55.442-04:00I know there are statistics about second-hand smok...I know there are statistics about second-hand smoking deaths but I seriously doubt that's actually entered as a "cause of death" on the certificate. Outdoor second hand smoke, if it has ever been linked to anything, has a death toll that i would comfortably approximate as "zero". <br /><br />As Quintus says below, I see plenty of trucks and buses that go far beyond a person's output. bad wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-61427066875497011972014-09-23T14:23:38.671-04:002014-09-23T14:23:38.671-04:00I meant that the "nil" health cost by th...I meant that the "nil" health cost by the letter writer was probably a case of pulling a number out of an orifice.Hapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-43383841130068437122014-09-23T14:22:48.506-04:002014-09-23T14:22:48.506-04:00BBQ stands (or other cooking stands) are usually a...BBQ stands (or other cooking stands) are usually at the park edges - depending on the structure (Camden Yards or Jacobs Field?) they might be much more exposed to airflow than the seats are. In the seats in a baseball park, the occupation density is much higher, and because of the bowl shape of stadiums, smoke (or other pollutants) are likely to linger around an area for a while before they dissipate, so that people are likely to get a decent dose of whatever other people put out. If there's more than a few smokers in a section, you could get reasonable amounts of smoke in the air around for a while. I don't know if the toxicities of the smokes are different. At a park or beach, though, there's no bowl shape to contain smoke, reasonable air flow, and far lower occupation densities. If someone smokes around you, you will get a dose, but the dose should be relatively low because you won't be exposed to it for long (both because of dilution and wind translating the smoke plume).<br /><br />I imagine that the smoking bans are a combination of the unpopularity of smokers and cities' desire to make smoking as painful as possible if they can't make it illegal (to lower its burdens on their health costs, and maybe in this case to minimize labor for park cleanup). While I think the letter writer is closer to the truth about smoking's health burden in parks and beaches than the cities attempting to ban smoking there, talking out of one's orifices doesn't help. I imagine that the aerial concentrations of smoking-related pollution could be measured, and the doses compared to those of other pollution sources - if cities actually cared about the alleged purpose of the bans or wanted to figure out how to act to maximize health benefits of their actions, that might be a place to start.Hapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-13728938005733665152014-09-23T12:00:23.368-04:002014-09-23T12:00:23.368-04:00Second-hand smoke in a confined space may build to...Second-hand smoke in a confined space may build to a level where there is a problem. Smoke being emitted several feet away from you, in the open air...? How fast does smoke diffuse? Is merely seeing a cigarette harmful? You go from indoors (possible health problem) to near the entrances (less likely but whatever) to nowhere in a public area, and try to use the same pseudo-science justification. That way risks turning us all into Food Babe.<br /><br />At my local ballpark cigarette smoking is banned, yet there is a huge cloud of smoke from the open grill barbeque stand. Strangely no one seems unduly effected.bad wolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-77563417451132284822014-09-23T10:48:33.909-04:002014-09-23T10:48:33.909-04:00One thinks that this equates to total stupidity by...One thinks that this equates to total stupidity by the NJ authorities. But I suppose they have to justify their existence to the poor suffering tax payer(s).<br />I think that 1 garbage truck driving around the parks picking up the rubbish would produce more harmful effects than a small percentage of a few attomoles of smoking humanity would cause.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15287977920784124907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-6089576041191244212014-09-23T09:17:19.115-04:002014-09-23T09:17:19.115-04:00I am confused: The hazard from breathing second-ha...I am confused: The hazard from breathing second-hand smoke in public beaches and parks is "incidental" and "nil"?Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-52751023940508556062014-09-23T00:43:51.635-04:002014-09-23T00:43:51.635-04:00That line of reasoning could take us down a rather...That line of reasoning could take us down a rather unpleasant path . . . but, I suppose its one way to go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-865317323786134142014-09-22T19:45:43.383-04:002014-09-22T19:45:43.383-04:00We should absolutely ban smoking in public. It do...We should absolutely ban smoking in public. It doesn't need to be about health--just base it on the shared wishes of the majority of people who don't want their activities to be disturbed by something they find extremely distasteful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com