Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 it was about passive smoking of workers, they are the same thing. No it wasn't and no it is not. smoking rooms were rejected on the basis they again were unworkable, Any more or less unworkable than a ban? Nope not at all, much less (although again this is NOT the reason). and workers would still have to enter these rooms Again lots of ventilation and gas masks if needed. and air curtains were tried as an alternative to impractical air conditioning systems Air curtains were the most unpractical "solution" of all, talk about trying to over engineer a solution failing and saying it's therefore impossible (although again this really has little to do with the smoking ban). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 the ban was always about workers, really can't see how you don't know that. It only came down to pub workers in the end because every other workplace has had the common sense to ban it already You keep saying this yet haven't answered my earlier point as to why the government should protect these people when they've chosen to take the job with the full knowledge of how it could impact on their health. because there is now a general rule in this country that no one should have to accept reducable risks to gain employment Every risk is essentially reducible. This is the sort of shit that has meant firemen can't go up ladders over a certain height. If you don't want the risk of dying in a burning building then don't join the fire brigade, if you don't fancy being shot at then don't join the army and if you don't want to accept the increased risk of smoke related problems then don't work in a bar. It's pretty fucking simple. Some sanity at last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 the ban was always about workers, really can't see how you don't know that. It only came down to pub workers in the end because every other workplace has had the common sense to ban it already You keep saying this yet haven't answered my earlier point as to why the government should protect these people when they've chosen to take the job with the full knowledge of how it could impact on their health. because there is now a general rule in this country that no one should have to accept reducable risks to gain employment Every risk is essentially reducible. This is the sort of shit that has meant firemen can't go up ladders over a certain height. If you don't want the risk of dying in a burning building then don't join the fire brigade, if you don't fancy being shot at then don't join the army and if you don't want to accept the increased risk of smoke related problems then don't work in a bar. It's pretty fucking simple. ridiculous comparisons. I think you'll find that firemen and soldiers go to extraordinary lengths to avoid getting burnt/shot. They don't just accept it is going to happen because that's the job they signed up to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 (edited) Just to raise a different comparison, the maximum dose of radiation that the HSE deems acceptable for the general public to exposed to is 20uSv per year. This level increases the risk of cancer by 0.00012% (and is 135 times smaller then the UK average background radiation level). I don't have any figures for second hand smoke but I'd expect that it increases the risk of cancer by more then that amount. Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. I have to wonder about your opinion on this though Bazooka and Kevin for that matter (and a solution other than the councils ignore it). Edited June 30, 2007 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 ridiculous comparisons. I think you'll find that firemen and soldiers go to extraordinary lengths to avoid getting burnt/shot. They don't just accept it is going to happen because that's the job they signed up to do I've heard they are banning, fires, bullets and wars soon tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3966 Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 the ban was always about workers, really can't see how you don't know that. It only came down to pub workers in the end because every other workplace has had the common sense to ban it already You keep saying this yet haven't answered my earlier point as to why the government should protect these people when they've chosen to take the job with the full knowledge of how it could impact on their health. because there is now a general rule in this country that no one should have to accept reducable risks to gain employment Even the H&S executive wouldn't have suggested a full smoking ban to reduce such risks. It's like saying the only way to cut car deaths is to ban cars (or as you mentioned ban mining to save miners), it would certainly work, but that isn't really the point. Again with the moronic comparisons. Smoking has no benefits at all. It is an addiction to a lethal drug. Why should people be forced to suffer the known 2nd hand dangers of someone elses addiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 it was about passive smoking of workers, they are the same thing. No it wasn't and no it is not. smoking rooms were rejected on the basis they again were unworkable, Any more or less unworkable than a ban? Nope not at all, much less (although again this is NOT the reason). and workers would still have to enter these rooms Again lots of ventilation and gas masks if needed. and air curtains were tried as an alternative to impractical air conditioning systems Air curtains were the most unpractical "solution" of all, talk about trying to over engineer a solution failing and saying it's therefore impossible (although again this really has little to do with the smoking ban). you're rewriting history tbh and yes, I think you'll find a ban is eminently more workable than the alternatives, as already seen in Ireland, Scotland and a whole host of other countries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 ridiculous comparisons. I think you'll find that firemen and soldiers go to extraordinary lengths to avoid getting burnt/shot. They don't just accept it is going to happen because that's the job they signed up to do I've heard they are banning, fires, bullets and wars soon tbh. are they? goody goody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Again with the moronic comparisons. Again not really me (so who is the moron again? ) Smoking has no benefits at all. Does unknowingly living in a radon filled area have any benefits? Well to anyone but the council in council tax? It is an addiction to a lethal drug. Why should people be forced to suffer the known 2nd hand dangers of someone elses addiction? Same with alcohol really, it not only is bad for you, but it also massively increases your risk of others attacking you (its a known factor in a VAST amount of crime these days). BAN IT NOW I SAY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31199 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 ridiculous comparisons. I think you'll find that firemen and soldiers go to extraordinary lengths to avoid getting burnt/shot. They don't just accept it is going to happen because that's the job they signed up to do They accept that it is a risk of the job, or at least should do. Of course they take precautions to avoid injury but shouldn't they go further to eliminate the risk? Full body armour at all times, bomb proof vehicles at all times etc etc, there is much that can be done to reduce risk of injury or illness in all jobs but many of the solutions are impractical but because the smoking ban doesn't put any of the inconvenience or cost on the government they think it's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Just to raise a different comparison, the maximum dose of radiation that the HSE deems acceptable for the general public to exposed to is 20uSv per year. This level increases the risk of cancer by 0.00012% (and is 135 times smaller then the UK average background radiation level). I don't have any figures for second hand smoke but I'd expect that it increases the risk of cancer by more then that amount. Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. I have to wonder about your opinion on this though Bazooka and Kevin for that matter (and a solution other than the councils ignore it). ....as long as it doesn't stink up their clothes they're pretty relaxed about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 you're rewriting history tbh Am I? How exactly? and yes, I think you'll find a ban is eminently more workable than the alternatives, as already seen in Ireland, Scotland and a whole host of other countries Easily enforceable and has OTHER effects, yes. But yet again that is NOT the same thing. ridiculous comparisons. I think you'll find that firemen and soldiers go to extraordinary lengths to avoid getting burnt/shot. They don't just accept it is going to happen because that's the job they signed up to do I've heard they are banning, fires, bullets and wars soon tbh. are they? goody goody Now most people I'd say that was sarcasm, but with you I think you actually believe me. Oh and what about councils knowingly allowing people to live with gas risks btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Just to raise a different comparison, the maximum dose of radiation that the HSE deems acceptable for the general public to exposed to is 20uSv per year. This level increases the risk of cancer by 0.00012% (and is 135 times smaller then the UK average background radiation level). I don't have any figures for second hand smoke but I'd expect that it increases the risk of cancer by more then that amount. Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. I have to wonder about your opinion on this though Bazooka and Kevin for that matter (and a solution other than the councils ignore it). ....as long as it doesn't stink up their clothes they're pretty relaxed about it. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Again with the moronic comparisons. Again not really me (so who is the moron again? ) Smoking has no benefits at all. Does unknowingly living in a radon filled area have any benefits? Well to anyone but the council in council tax? It is an addiction to a lethal drug. Why should people be forced to suffer the known 2nd hand dangers of someone elses addiction? Same with alcohol really, it not only is bad for you, but it also massively increases your risk of others attacking you (its a known factor in a VAST amount of crime these days). BAN IT NOW I SAY!!! AGREE!! Lost days at work. Mental illness...families sufferring. Alcoholism rife in Scotland...Burden on the state and welfare...yada yada.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31199 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Again with the moronic comparisons. Smoking has no benefits at all. It is an addiction to a lethal drug. Why should people be forced to suffer the known 2nd hand dangers of someone elses addiction? What about alcohol? People are attacked because of people under the influence, families can be torn apart because of alcoholism, the NHS spends millions each year on alcohol related illnesses, so let's ban it too. While we're at it why not ban chocolate, crisps and fried food, it would certainly help with the obesity problem. Where do we stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3966 Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 Just to raise a different comparison, the maximum dose of radiation that the HSE deems acceptable for the general public to exposed to is 20uSv per year. This level increases the risk of cancer by 0.00012% (and is 135 times smaller then the UK average background radiation level). I don't have any figures for second hand smoke but I'd expect that it increases the risk of cancer by more then that amount. Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. I have to wonder about your opinion on this though Bazooka and Kevin for that matter (and a solution other than the councils ignore it). ....as long as it doesn't stink up their clothes they're pretty relaxed about it. Indeed. If you let me know where it has happened I will campaign against it. The same as I campaigned against building houses beneath power lines and campaigned against greenfield development. I am just not an idiot who thinks smokng is the same as using a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Again with the moronic comparisons. Smoking has no benefits at all. It is an addiction to a lethal drug. Why should people be forced to suffer the known 2nd hand dangers of someone elses addiction? What about alcohol? People are attacked because of people under the influence, families can be torn apart because of alcoholism, the NHS spends millions each year on alcohol related illnesses, so let's ban it too. While we're at it why not ban chocolate, crisps and fried food, it would certainly help with the obesity problem. Where do we stop? Yeah but more importantly does any of it makes yer clothes smell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Just to raise a different comparison, the maximum dose of radiation that the HSE deems acceptable for the general public to exposed to is 20uSv per year. This level increases the risk of cancer by 0.00012% (and is 135 times smaller then the UK average background radiation level). I don't have any figures for second hand smoke but I'd expect that it increases the risk of cancer by more then that amount. Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. I have to wonder about your opinion on this though Bazooka and Kevin for that matter (and a solution other than the councils ignore it). ....as long as it doesn't stink up their clothes they're pretty relaxed about it. Indeed. If you let me know where it has happened I will campaign against it. The same as I campaigned against building houses beneath power lines and campaigned against greenfield development. I am just not an idiot who thinks smokng is the same as using a car. ....that's cause you know cars are worse right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 ridiculous comparisons. I think you'll find that firemen and soldiers go to extraordinary lengths to avoid getting burnt/shot. They don't just accept it is going to happen because that's the job they signed up to do They accept that it is a risk of the job, or at least should do. Of course they take precautions to avoid injury but shouldn't they go further to eliminate the risk? Full body armour at all times, bomb proof vehicles at all times etc etc, there is much that can be done to reduce risk of injury or illness in all jobs but many of the solutions are impractical but because the smoking ban doesn't put any of the inconvenience or cost on the government they think it's ok. why don't they go further? because it would make their jobs impossible. Does banning smoking make being a bar maid impossible? no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3966 Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 Again with the moronic comparisons. Smoking has no benefits at all. It is an addiction to a lethal drug. Why should people be forced to suffer the known 2nd hand dangers of someone elses addiction? What about alcohol? People are attacked because of people under the influence, families can be torn apart because of alcoholism, the NHS spends millions each year on alcohol related illnesses, so let's ban it too. While we're at it why not ban chocolate, crisps and fried food, it would certainly help with the obesity problem. Where do we stop? Yeah but more importantly does any of it makes yer clothes smell? Again a moronic comparison they aren't banning smoking just in certain places. The same as alcohol is banned in certain places. You should really think before you type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31199 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Among the general drinking public is the desire to ban smoking as strong as the desire to retain the right to have a pint and a fag? I don't think so, if the public really demanded smoke free bars then why hasn't the market catered to this demand through more pubs going smoke free voluntarily? Surely if the ban really had the public's support then these smoke free establishments would already exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. If you let me know where it has happened I will campaign against it. The same as I campaigned against building houses beneath power lines and campaigned against greenfield development. That's the thing though, they know, but they refuse to tell you, even if you directly ask. They don't mind you dying from it, just not causing an issue or indeed probably suing them about it. I am just not an idiot who thinks smokng is the same as using a car. Neither am I, but equally I'm not an idiot that accepts what I'm told when it is incorrect (be it about passive smoking or how biofuel is wonderful and without drawbacks - for the companies making it, yes it is I'm sure). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Just to raise a different comparison, the maximum dose of radiation that the HSE deems acceptable for the general public to exposed to is 20uSv per year. This level increases the risk of cancer by 0.00012% (and is 135 times smaller then the UK average background radiation level). I don't have any figures for second hand smoke but I'd expect that it increases the risk of cancer by more then that amount. Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. The radioactive gas you refer to is Radon, its exists where ever there is granite. It accounts for about 50% of the background radiation in the UK and WAS NOT what i was referring too. The figure i have given is for that directly from industry, power stations, Sellafield etc. Additionally when you buy a house you can do a Radon survey which tells if its there or not. So its only if you live in rented accommodation that you wouldn't know and even then your landlord will. But the only places at any substantial risk of this in the UK are Devon/Cornwall and Aberdeen. The comparison i was making was between the risk that the nuclear industry can do without other peoples consent and second hand smoke (which generally is without peoples consent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3966 Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 Just to raise a different comparison, the maximum dose of radiation that the HSE deems acceptable for the general public to exposed to is 20uSv per year. This level increases the risk of cancer by 0.00012% (and is 135 times smaller then the UK average background radiation level). I don't have any figures for second hand smoke but I'd expect that it increases the risk of cancer by more then that amount. Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. I have to wonder about your opinion on this though Bazooka and Kevin for that matter (and a solution other than the councils ignore it). ....as long as it doesn't stink up their clothes they're pretty relaxed about it. Indeed. If you let me know where it has happened I will campaign against it. The same as I campaigned against building houses beneath power lines and campaigned against greenfield development. I am just not an idiot who thinks smokng is the same as using a car. ....that's cause you know cars are worse right? I want all cars to be powered by a non polluting fuel. I also want public transport to be improved so it is a more viable option. I also would like the introduction of real enforced cycle routes to stop cyclists being nearly killed by idiot drivers. If you looked at the thread start you would see that the thread is about smokers who believe the ban is an infringement of their rights without taking into account the rights of others. Thus enforcing my personal opinion that some smokers are the most selfish people in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 (edited) Just to raise a different comparison, the maximum dose of radiation that the HSE deems acceptable for the general public to exposed to is 20uSv per year. This level increases the risk of cancer by 0.00012% (and is 135 times smaller then the UK average background radiation level). I don't have any figures for second hand smoke but I'd expect that it increases the risk of cancer by more then that amount. Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. The radioactive gas you refer to is Radon, its exists where ever there is granite. It accounts for about 50% of the background radiation in the UK and WAS NOT what i was referring too. The figure i have given is for that directly from industry, power stations, Sellafield etc. Additionally when you buy a house you can do a Radon survey which tells if its there or not. So its only if you live in rented accommodation that you wouldn't know and even then your landlord will. But the only places at any substantial risk of this in the UK are Devon/Cornwall and Aberdeen. Aye of specific radon issues (although it's not just the places you mention although it was once thought it was), but that's not the only gas risk, although it is the one you can do least about (except move). But go and ask if your house is at Radon risk (or land fill or mining gas risk for that matter). The comparison i was making was between the risk that the nuclear industry can do without other peoples consent and second hand smoke (which generally is without peoples consent). Ironically we're probably going to have to rely on nuclear power more and more. And yes second hand radiation is something to be more worried about (especially in the long term). Edited June 30, 2007 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now