Slashdot Mirror

Here it is.

Also, simply inhaling warm vapors when you have a cold, and drinking warm things, especially stuff that 'sticks' to your throat thanks to the fat in the broth, has known medical benefits. That is, in fact, the entire point of cough drops and vapor-rub.

Oh, and don't underestimate the value of just eating something you're sick. Chicken soup provides proteins and carbohydrates in a form that even someone with the worst throat irritation can eat. While they would not, for example, want to eat a cheeseburger, which would have nearly the same nutritional content.

So at the very least, it is a) something warm to drink that will help clear nasal passages, that b) people can actually eat easily while sick and even coughing, and we know both those things already for a fact. Any additional chemical medical benefit is still hypothetical and being tested.

Because the devices are Nuclear Powered

I have a picture, a vest made of microphones:

http://meeting.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstra ct/128/4/476S

A) Cars, Busses - if you're correct - move to a hydrogen economy - this doesn't refute my statement about cigarettes

parent: There has never been any study that remotely suggested that dilute second hand smoke has any appreciable effect on health.

Wow you're dead wrong. Incoming source citations.

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/123/1 _suppl/21S
http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/ets/pdfs/etsch8.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ets/pdfs/acknowl.pdf

Passive smokers inhale a complex mixture of smoke that is now widely referred to as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Passive smoking was first considered as a possible risk factor for lung cancer in 1981 when two studies were published that described increased lung cancer risk among never-smoking women who were married to smokers. Hirayama89 reported the findings from a cohort study in Japan, which showed that among nonsmoking women, those whose husbands smoked cigarettes were at higher risk for lung cancer than those whose husbands were nonsmokers. A case-control study in Athens reported by Trichopoulos and colleagues90 shortly thereafter replicated this finding. Additional evidence rapidly accrued so that by 1986 two important summary reports were published. The National Research Council reviewed the epidemiologic evidence and concluded that nonsmoking spouses who were married to cigarette smokers were about 30% more likely to develop lung cancer than nonsmoking spouses who were married to nonsmokers, and that this relationship was biologically plausible.91 Almost one fourth of lung cancer cases among never-smokers were estimated to be attributed to exposure to passive smoking.91 The 1986 report of the Surgeon General also judged passive smoking to be a cause of lung cancer,14 an inference corroborated by the 1992 review15 of the evidence and risk assessment by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which classified ETS as a known human (class A) carcinogen. Estimates indicate that passive smoking accounts for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States.15

Increases Severity of Asthma: http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/1 22/2/409
Harder to detect, nonthreshold exposure to lower levels of ETS could account for worsening more than 1 million cases of asthma in children. http://www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/passive-smokin g-and-lung-disease.htm

Pregnancy and smoking:
when adjusted for maternal smoking during pregnancy, the effects of current smoking on the children's lung function were markedly decreased and were no longer significant. Boys showed greater ETS-related deficits in all these measures of lung function than girls" [which translates to: ETS is bad, but smoking while pregnant dwarfs it]

parent: It's not going to hurt you. Just learn not to flip out over little things man.
It's scientifically proven that it IS going to hurt you -- and demeaning your opponant by calling them "little man" is pathetic.

I could go on and on and on with the evidence. You ahve fallen into the FUD marketing by the tobacco companies and their lap-dog politicians when you say there is no evidence.

The first doctor to ever discover the health effects of smoking (in 1950!) was a smoker. He quit on the spot. [he died recently - may he RIP]

A) Cars, Busses - if you're correct - move to a hydrogen economy - this doesn't refute my statement about cigarettes

parent: There has never been any study that remotely suggested that dilute second hand smoke has any appreciable effect on health.

Wow you're dead wrong. Incoming source citations.

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/123/1 _suppl/21S
http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/ets/pdfs/etsch8.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ets/pdfs/acknowl.pdf

Passive smokers inhale a complex mixture of smoke that is now widely referred to as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Passive smoking was first considered as a possible risk factor for lung cancer in 1981 when two studies were published that described increased lung cancer risk among never-smoking women who were married to smokers. Hirayama89 reported the findings from a cohort study in Japan, which showed that among nonsmoking women, those whose husbands smoked cigarettes were at higher risk for lung cancer than those whose husbands were nonsmokers. A case-control study in Athens reported by Trichopoulos and colleagues90 shortly thereafter replicated this finding. Additional evidence rapidly accrued so that by 1986 two important summary reports were published. The National Research Council reviewed the epidemiologic evidence and concluded that nonsmoking spouses who were married to cigarette smokers were about 30% more likely to develop lung cancer than nonsmoking spouses who were married to nonsmokers, and that this relationship was biologically plausible.91 Almost one fourth of lung cancer cases among never-smokers were estimated to be attributed to exposure to passive smoking.91 The 1986 report of the Surgeon General also judged passive smoking to be a cause of lung cancer,14 an inference corroborated by the 1992 review15 of the evidence and risk assessment by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which classified ETS as a known human (class A) carcinogen. Estimates indicate that passive smoking accounts for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States.15

Increases Severity of Asthma: http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/1 22/2/409
Harder to detect, nonthreshold exposure to lower levels of ETS could account for worsening more than 1 million cases of asthma in children. http://www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/passive-smokin g-and-lung-disease.htm

Pregnancy and smoking:
when adjusted for maternal smoking during pregnancy, the effects of current smoking on the children's lung function were markedly decreased and were no longer significant. Boys showed greater ETS-related deficits in all these measures of lung function than girls" [which translates to: ETS is bad, but smoking while pregnant dwarfs it]

parent: It's not going to hurt you. Just learn not to flip out over little things man.
It's scientifically proven that it IS going to hurt you -- and demeaning your opponant by calling them "little man" is pathetic.

I could go on and on and on with the evidence. You ahve fallen into the FUD marketing by the tobacco companies and their lap-dog politicians when you say there is no evidence.

The first doctor to ever discover the health effects of smoking (in 1950!) was a smoker. He quit on the spot. [he died recently - may he RIP]

Well it seems to be alot more difficult
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/115/2 /580
you can trust P3NIS_CLEAVER as long as your tallwacker is not on the counter!