Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@26 October 2003 - 02:26
I am talking about society, not you. We would not have to rebuild cities and change our lives because cigarettes go away. Had you never smoked, you would have found a substitute for dealing with stress. Perhaps sucking on candy instead of smoking, as most people are not allowed to drink/ smoke pot at work. I get so frustrated by my assistants who become useless if we work through a smoke break, they become careless and dangerous.
We are in agreement that energy alternatives are desirable. Even if we changed to a non-polluting source, auto related deaths would not changed by a single life.
So you cannot initially post about deaths related to cars, then switch position to health effects related to emissions. Even if we consider emissions, the incidence of lung cancer is extremely low, except in smokers, that is.
So if we elimate the health risk related to emissions, which we could if the oil companies would stop controlling our politicians, it makes the comparison completely invalid.
Edit: Sorry, forgot to answer your question. I am a nonsmoker who watched his mother got through years of frustration trying to quit. Sometimes parental examples are more effective than parental rules. I observed her and never wanted to suffer as she did.
To be honest with you I never thought of the pollution side of automobiles until I got to work (I work for a garage in london) and caught a lungful of exhaust cos the lazy arsed boy couldn't be bothered to put an extractor on the exhaust of the car he was revving the nuts off!
Quote:
Even if we consider emissions, the incidence of lung cancer is extremely low, except in smokers, that is.
But pollution causes about a fifth of all cancer (not necessarily lung cancer) related illness according to New Scientest.
Quote:
Its findings were summarised in New Scientist, which wrote: "Up to a fifth of all cancer deaths are caused by tiny particles of pollution, most of them from vehicle exhaust.
