chal7ds

"The United States's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes tobacco use as "the single most important preventable risk to human health in developed countries and an important cause of premature death worldwide".1 An indirect public health problem posed by cigarettes is that of accidental fires, usually linked with consumption of alcohol. Numerous cigarette designs have been proposed, some by tobacco companies themselves, which would extinguish a cigarette left unattended for more than a minute or two, thereby reducing the risk of fire. However the tobacco companies have historically resisted this idea, on the grounds that the nuisance involved in having to relight a cigarette left untouched for too long would reduce their sales. In fact, untreated tobacco formed into a cigarette will extinguish itself relatively quickly if left alone, and as a result cigarette tobacco is treated chemically to allow it to smolder indefinitely. The main health risks in tobacco smoking pertain to diseases of the cardiovascular system, in particular smoking being a major risk factor for a myocardial infarction (heart attack), diseases of the respiratory tract such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and emphysema, and cancer, particularly lung cancer and cancers of the larynx and tongue. Prior to World War I, lung cancer was considered to be a rare disease, which most physicians would never see during their career. With the postwar rise in popularity of cigarette smoking, however, came a virtual epidemic of lung cancer. A person's increased risk of contracting disease is directly proportional to the length of time that a person continues to smoke as well as the amount smoked. However, if someone stops smoking, then these chances steadily although gradually decrease as the damage to their body is repaired. Diseases linked to smoking tobacco cigarettes include: lung cancer and other cancers stroke peripheral vascular disease birth defects of pregnant smokers' offspring Buerger's disease (thromboangiitis obliterans) impotence chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema and chronic bronchitis in particular " ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This information was taken from a recent article on health and smoking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- As you can see, the reading and research I've done on the topic points to more human health problems as opposed to air pollution, but you seem to miss the point of why a forum is created. It is a public area for OPEN discussion, argument, questions, and ideas. By postulating a question about cigerettes and their relationship to air pollution, I am opening a topic about a subject in which I could not find information otherwise, so when i get answers that depend on other answers from the participators in the thread, of course I'm not going to be satisfied, especially if it's shown that it causes diseases, it obviously, even if somewhat 'insignificant', probably affects the air as well. It might not be noticeable now, but who knows, in a century or two..we could be in some dangerous territory. And of course computers are more dangerous to our society than cigerettes, but I already KNOW that..I'm asking a question and wanting an answer or at least brainstorming about a possible problem that might exist that I don't know too much about. Get it? Since you've also assumed what type of person I might be, I think I will return the favor and 'assume' what type of person you are: I bet you're the type of person to not question anything metaphysically, and you're probably the type of person who sits there and smokes a pack of cigerettes around people who don't like smoke totally unaware and apathetic of it's effects on the health of yourself and society. You're probably also the person who talks s@#t in a forum about someone you don't know, but then runs away to mommy when actually faced by the people in real life who you assume and slander on in a forum. Of course, this is only a 'bet'..as you've placed one on me. Thank you and good day.

"Clearly you are one of the people who have been taken in by these groups" I have not been 'taken in' by any group. I pose (individually) it may be a problem, unlike you, who seems to think that since an issue is currently "unknown", that we have no reason to take responsibility for OURSELVES to pry farther and figure out for OURSELVES if it is a problem or not, instead of waiting for scientists to figure it out for us. Just because you might be inexperienced or don't know the ramifications of a possible problem, doesn't mean you can't still pose metaphysical arguments concerning it. I think it might be a problem because I've read about how factories and chemical plants have had major accident spilling, which causes major pollution in creeks, rivers, land, etc.. This concerns me, because we have to dig deeper and question the source of these industries and their ultimate goal on society. If the secretions of these industries have done this type of destruction in this area of pollution, i have to question whether they might be polluting the air as well. I am also prepared, if given the right information, to seek out my own methods of measurement or conclusions..but obviously, i would need help from other people before i could do that. I guess the answers I want are out of the scope of this forum, so I will try to contact the climate scientists as you've mentioned. Thank you.

and your rationale and/or proof for this argument please?

social skills are tied in with argument because they directly influence whether a SOLUTION is found or not. So yes, it is viable to critique the argument skills of another if those lacking skills are blocking a point of interest, or access to REAL information. There are no boundaries here people. Let's discuss what's WRONG with what civilization is doing, not name a topic of debate only to bring up another one without going into detail about how the first problem contributes to the pollution of air. I know ppl are sensitive, because no one wants to feel insecure during an argument, but if that's the case, then we aren't having a real discussion..we're just shooting the s#$t about various topics with no real desire to find solutions. I WANT SOLUTIONS. I want to know what's WRONG with what civilization is doing, don't you?

Bascule answers questions with references, but his own answers to my questions I think kind of mirror where his own knowledge lies... in one big, black, hole of nothingness..lol

have you been reading this thread? We've already established that the effects of cigerettes on global warming is nil.

"It's big. It's black. It absorbs heat..." Right. But what is the chemical process? How does all the collected heat in the building or lot transfer that energy to actual ground? And then what is the chemical process of the ground to air? That's my question... Annnd...HOW ARE WE MEASURING THAT TODAY? ARE WE CONCERNED THAT PARKING LOTS, BUILDINGS, CARS, ETC MIGHT BE F#$KING UP OUR AIR? As far as the other points, you pretty much hit dead on exactly what i wanted, except i'm a little more interested in how land use is affecting global warming, not oceans, although i realize that is important as well.

"Through this we are able to define a set of anthropogenic forcings on the climate system, and the main one impacting "global warming" isn't "greenhouse gasses" as the media would have you believe, it's land use, which can greatly affect how much solar radiation is stored by the earth as heat and then released into the atmosphere." "I'm not say we should be worrying about that" if the one impacting global warming is 'land use' as you've said here, then why again should't we be worrying about this??? why wouldn't we be worrying about something even if it's small, if it's IMPACTING global warming? "How much is man influencing it? We don't know. That's a very complex question heavily debated by climate scientists." Ok, well..I'd like to heavily debate..not just make a dodging statement that 'climate scientists' are arguing about it somewhere. Debating means to discuss things with specific opposing points. So what is the point or points? BE SPECIFIC..it's okay if you put blame on mankind, i'm not gonna start crying or anything. "Land use as a forcing comes into play primarily with changes to the biosphere, most notably agriculture; plants alter the moisture content of the air around them and thus allow it to store more heat." So, by this, are you arguing that fundamental argriculture (the origin of pastoralism) is the cause and origin of potential harmful global warming? And something else that escapes me, is that you also said parking lots contribute more than litter, yet you won't get specific about how..you continually evade things you've brought up, and bring up others... PLEASE be SPECIFIC about your original allegations, instead of bringing up a NEW problem each time.. course, I have a feeling you can't..you're gonna leave that up to the ambiguous climate scientists...

that's all fine and dandy bascule, but you still didn't answer my questions...

"Global mean surface temperatures are often touted as an indicator of global warming when what we should really be looking at is atmospheric heat content." Wow. Ok..great..I'm glad I'm getting some truth here. But I still have questions. For instance, if what we should be worried about is atmospheric heat content, how are we measuring that? and what are we seeing? And is what we're seeing rates increasing? Also, how are things like parking lots, industrial buildings, factories, etc contributing as land use to the heat that the earth stores? What is the chemical process that takes place via the object to nature that is forcing the earth to collect more heat? (which in turn puts that heat in the atmosphere, correct?)

what about ground pollution? All these f@$kin mcdonald's cups and napkins and newspapers i see all over the ground everyday...somehow that has to affect the soil, which the soil inversely affects the air, no??

LOL..nice...some chaos theory! it seems very complacent though, that just because there is no scientific evidence that it is affecting our atmosphere, to just assume that it is not. I feel like all of us should be doing something about this..but it's very strange how no one seems to care about this (among millions of other problems in our world today) we should at least be helping each other out to study and figure this out. the more fire i can get against smokers when they f@#kin ask me for a cigerette each day i walk home from work, the better. i HATE getting asked for cigerettes..it just reminds me of how much this planet doesnt give a flying F#@$k...

Hey Everyone, Does cigerette smoking add to global warming or air pollution? And if so, can some scientifically explain in easy terms how this process occurs?