Global Warming Debate

[Rockter]

Ragnar...

It's not going to work. I have no objection to anyone being there until they share out their benzo[a]pyrene. I draw the line at that. Go outside there man. It will harm only yourself. Cam was arguing it harms only him, that way he can come inside the pub and share it around. My first quarrel with Cam, it seems.

Honestly there man, it's like someone burning a tyre next to you. It reeks like a gasoline tank for hours, sticks to everything, makes your eyes water and works on the DNA of the vital oxygen exchange organ. Smoking-induced lung tumours are unbelievably malignant, once unleashed. There is one known cause of that tumour type, and it does not distinguish between smokers and non-smokers in the same room. The probability goes up with the former, but the latter is at risk, and doesn't wish to be.

Smoking in pubs has, for decades, been part of the scene here, but people went to pubs well before Walter Raleigh brought it back from South America, and they survived without it before then.

[PBzeer]

I have no problem with banning smoking in public buildings, or even private ones such as supermarkets, pharmacies, etc., where it's really not a choice to enter or not. But any establishment, such as a pub or resturaunt, where there is no necessisty of entering, but only one of choice, then that should be left to the discrection of the owner.

That's the point trying to be made. It's not a question of whether smoking is good or bad, but one of choices.

(Yeah, I'm obviously in Sailnet denial)

[camaraderie]

Rock...no...that is not at ALL what I was arguing. I think you misunderstood me....but we may still disagree so I'll try to clarify.

1. I think that smoke is nasty stuff (smelly, causes ashtma aggravation etc.) that others who DON'T want to shouldn't have to breath in. So...if the government wants to ban smoking in places THEY own...and you and others want to ban it in the private places you own...than that is just fine with me. It is also appropriate to ban it in general work places where both groups must necessarily come together but one would also hope for some accommodation to those with THIS disability!
2. I believe that those who DO smoke should be able to have indoor places they can go to and smoke if other private owners wish to provide them. Call it "Joe's Smoking Pub" as opposed to "Jim's Non-Smoking Pub". I in no way support forcing non-smokers to breath in any one elses smoke unless they choose to patronize a place that allows it. With about 80% of the public non-smoking...the number of pubs, restaurants, movie theaters etc. that could survive catering to the 20% is limited...but anyone should be able to try to appeal to either side.
3. My 3rd point had NOTHING to do with the public smoking arguments above at all. I simply stated that the studies which claim to show a link between second hand smoke and cancer are flawed in methodology and even if you accept the results...the causation link is very weak. I don't deny there are bad things in cigarette smoke...just not enough of them to cause cancer in others in the "room".
Nevertheless...I support your right not to breath in other people's smoke in government buildings and offices where people of all types must work and be together. I just also support the right of others who do smoke to be able to find or start places where ONLY smokers are desired as customers.

Do we still disagree?

[RAGNAR]

zzzz

[chucklesR]

As a smoker I try to pay attention to others. If I'm standing 10 feet away from you outside smoking and I was there first- then you walk up tell me it is bothering you I will tell you to move then and absolutely ignore you from then on.

Don't get me wrong. I hate smoking, have quit often enough to know how much it stinks, but otherwise, hey dude, take a walk. I've put up with as much as I'm going to take on the subject. It's not a hobby, it's an addiction I can't break.

Like Ragnar said, maybe I don't like it that you(insert your 'thing', doesn't matter what) - do you really want to regulate what you can do in your house? I hate the smell of fried liver, let's outlaw frying liver - I'm sure I can find a few chemicals that it produces that are harmful and have a long hang time, enough so that unsuspecting visitors are affected...the list goes on..

and now, back to the thread

Global cooling has really gotten out of hand. Yesterday I went sailing, in Maryland, at 74 degrees. Today it's like 40 again and the talking heads on T.V. are talking snow is possible.

What's up with that? Send money to www.sendmetothetropics.com so I can live!!!! The cold is killing me!!!! Do you know how silly I look in a Hawaiian shirt when it's snowing outside?????

[bobwebster]

I'd have a nuclear powered sailboat if I could singlehand it.

[sailaway21]

The only relevance to this thread that the second-hand smoke issue has is that the global warming fanatics can only aspire to reach the level of fanticism exhibited by the anti-smokers, but they're sure trying. Similar "control" issues, it seems to me.

[bestfriend]

Instead of starting a whole new thread, I'll just interject here. I have always been a big supporter of alternative fuels and power supplies. I realize that our need for oil will likely never go away, and the dependence on any other single resource will eventually place us back in the same position we are now. So, I believe that there needs to be a mix of fuels used where they fit in best.

Last year our department started a program to use B20 biodiesel. One station was to use it for a year to determine the advantages and disadvantages. Yesterday I learned of its disastrous results. The truck at the station is no longer able to climb hills. A 300k piece of firefighting equipment has had its power source crippled. I have not read anything to date about hp performance being affected by biodiesel, so my guess is that seals are shot. Once again, crude oil shows it dominance when true raw power is needed. I have heard that biodiesel can eat away at hoses and seals, and I don't know if our department took the precautionary measures necessary for success, it wouldn't surprise me if they even used the same tank that the regular diesel was in. I haven't heard of the same results for your everyday consumer commuting around town, but the stresses we put on those rigs are enormous and would give one a better idea of the end result with a quicker conclusion. I don't have all the info yet, but I thought it was an interesting bit of information. The City had planned to convert all of their vehicles to alternative fuels in the next few years.

[ReverendMike]

BF
Damn, that bites! I've been trying to pay attention to as much info on the various bio-fuels, including bio-diesel for marine use (nice seminar by the Yanmar folks at Strictly Sail Chicago BTW). I thought the bio-diesel 'problem' was that it seemed to 'pick-up' the sludge from the bottom of the tank and clog the filters thoroughly and repeatedly until the fuel tank was (finally) nice and clean (I suppose that's a good thing in the end, but getting there is a bitch!). I also thought that when bio-diesel first came out, there were some modifications needed in order to use it with out damaging the engine, but I've not heard that lately so am probably just AFOC-ing (is that a verb?).

Could you PM me with more details as they come out, in case our district starts pushing this here? Thanks.

(BTW - It's not too hilly around here and us 'poor country bumpkin' FD's can always use hand-me-downs....)

Mike

[sailaway21]

Bob Lutz, one of the really true "car-guys", is exec. vp at GM and calls global warming a "crock". Outspokenness on such matters is why every person who enjoys cars for their own sake, listens to Bob Lutz. The man is certifiably smart and well educated but not averse to lighting up some rubber on Woodward Avenue. All in all, my kind of guy!

Here's the story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...BrandChannel=0