Slashdot Mirror


A Geek Funeral

We've recently talked about a geek wedding, and now reader Sam_In_The_Hills writes in with news of his brother's geek funeral. "I've not seen this topic covered here before even though it's one that will concern us all at some time: what to do with our corporeal remains after we've left for that great data bank in the sky. For my recently departed brother (long illness, don't smoke!), I thought this nice SPARCstation would be a cool place to spend eternity. Yes, he's really in there (after cremation). I kept the floppy drive cover but for space reasons removed the floppy drive, hard drive, and most of the power supply. I left behind the motherboard and power switch and plugs to keep all openings covered. The case worked quite well at his memorial party. His friends and family were able to leave their final good-byes on post-notes. Anyone who wanted to keep their words private could just slip their note into the case through the floppy slot. All notes will be sealed in plastic and placed within the case. There has been one complication. His daughters like the look of it so much they aren't now sure if they want to bury him. One more thing: the words on the plaque really do capture one of the last things he ever said. Of course as kids we watched the show in its first run."

51 of 479 comments (clear)

  1. Sparc Station? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he was a Sun admin, I would wager it wasn't the cigarettes.

    1. Re:Sparc Station? by palmerj3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Truly epic misinterpretation of, "I'd like to be incinerated in the Sun".

  2. Good way to go by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remembered as in life, not as the struggle through the end.

    I'm sure your brother appreciates the sentiment.

    --
    John
  3. Geek funeral? by Hojima · · Score: 4, Informative

    Everybody knows that geeks want to be frozen until the day that they can be made into cyborgs

    1. Re:Geek funeral? by GoochOwnsYou · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Glad that was modded Informative because I do want that for me, I am dead serious!

      --
      This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
    2. Re:Geek funeral? by Cybrex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      http://www.alcor.org/ . My wife and I are both signed up for cryonic suspension. Even if the chances of success are low, they beat the pants off of the alternative!

      Also, if I may tout my own unofficial FAQ: http://datan0de.livejournal.com/144534.html

      --
      Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
    3. Re:Geek funeral? by pherthyl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry, your FAQ isn't very convincing. Firstly, you're screwing over any possible dependents by making Alcor your insurance beneficiary. Unless you want to pay for two life insurance policies, you're screwing over your kids/family/whomever on some hare-brained scheme for some infinitely small chance that you might "live" again in the future. Selfish at best, unless you are wealthy.

      Then there's your certainty that the company will survive for the hundreds or thousands of years it will take for technology to be at the point where they can revive you. That's incredibly unlikely, since no company in history has survived for that long (your arguments about financial stability are laughable, since there will almost certainly be several currency devaluations and government, society, and world upheavals in that period). I put the chances of you actually staying frozen for 1000 years at basically zero.

      And then you think that they would bother to revive you. That too is staggeringly unlikely. Sure, they would revive a few people just to prove that it can be done. But after that, why would they bother? There'll be tens or hundreds of billions of humans around, do you really think they'll need more? They got a couple hundred thousand dollars 1000 years ago to keep you frozen, do you really think they would go to the significant expense and effort to revive you, and then reverse your aging as well? Why would they bother? There's no more incentive for them to do that at all (altruism, don't make me laugh). Even if they've conquered aging by then, that's not at all the same as reversing the aging process, and will most likely not be trivial.

      Finally, what I don't understand is this certainty that being frozen and revived beats the pants off being dead. How could you possibly know that? No one knows. Maybe if you were properly dead you'd be in heaven (not that I believe in that). Instead you get to spend the next thousand years being really freaking cold. Or maybe death would be oblivion (more likely) and you couldn't form any opinion of it since you can't think, so it's not bad, or good, or anything really.

    4. Re:Geek funeral? by i_ate_god · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Hudson Bay Company lasted that long. 339 years and still going actually.

      But there are many other companies that have existed for much longer.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi

      That one survived for more than 1000 years. So yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that a company can survive, or at the very least, can ensure the safety of uhm... yourself. Just ensure that a legally binding contract ensures that you'll be kept for X amount of time. It's happened before. Guinness has a lease on its brewery for several thousand years. A contract like this can ensure that buyers of the company you originally signed up with will keep you going.

      However, I agree with most everything else you said. I'm just saying... your second point is invalid.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    5. Re:Geek funeral? by iJusten · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then there's your certainty that the company will survive for the hundreds or thousands of years it will take for technology to be at the point where they can revive you. That's incredibly unlikely, since no company in history has survived for that long (your arguments about financial stability are laughable, since there will almost certainly be several currency devaluations and government, society, and world upheavals in that period). I put the chances of you actually staying frozen for 1000 years at basically zero.

      The oldest company in the world reached well over 1400 years before it fell to hard times. Link. Other old companies can be found here.

      And even if we were to accept your argument of losing money over long-term (which history has shown to be false, even during turbulent times such as these), the value of gold has stayed fairly same for most of the human existence.

      However, I'm not sure about the chances of getting resurrected, but that's a whole other subject right there.

      --
      Chronologically late.
    6. Re:Geek funeral? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I want nothing left of my corpse.

      Give any useful organs away. Let a child see a sunset through my corneas; let my heart break again in the ribcage of a teenager; let my lungs have their breath taken away when holding a new infant.

      My skeleton can inspire and educate biology students. My brain can shed new light on diseases, either ones I don't know I have yet or as a control group.

      When I'm dead, I'm done with the meatsack. Anyone who wants it can have it.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    7. Re:Geek funeral? by Cybrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're making quite a few presumptions here. I'll try to take your main points one at a time, and will ignore the ad hominems and obvious trolling:
      * I'm not screwing anybody over. I have no children and no plans to have any. My wife and I both established *plenty* of life insurance long before making any cryonics arrangements. If I go down tomorrow my wife is well taken care of, and vice versa. The separate policies that cover our cryosuspension are just that- separate. And no, we're not wealthy by any means- at least compared with the average non-student slashdotter. I suspect you're grossly overestimating the cost of cryonic suspension and the cost of an insurance policy for a healthy non-smoker in his early 30's.

      * You may find my assessment of the Patient Care Trust's financial stability "laughable", but I find the idea that it'll take 1000 years for us to obtain control over matter at the molecular level patently absurd. Eric Drexler estimates that it'll happen within our lifetimes (or at least my lifetime), and the trends in nanotech development point to him being not too far off. Even if he's wildly optimistic, I suspect that nothing short of a global cataclysm will keep us from reaching that goal in this century, and I'm willing to bet my life on that. (And as I mention in the FAQ, if a global cataclysm does happen then we're all SOL anyway.)

      * Why would they bother to revive us? Again, I covered this in the FAQ. The PCT is under contractual obligation, and one of the requirements to be on the board of directors is that you have to have a family member already in the tank, so they have a vested interest in their well-being. Why does anyone help anyone in a critical medical situation? You can call the question naive if you like, but the fact is that people do help each other. If nothing else, it's likely that anyone who does get revived will be highly motivated to rescue their fellow cryonauts. (I base this statement on my personal interactions with over 2 dozen Alcor members, every one of whom would take that position.)

      If you prefer to disregard basic human empathy entirely, and are looking for a completely economic/rational reason, as technology continues to improve and spread eventually the cost of reviving patients will be less than the cost of maintaining their stasis.

      * I'll disregard your conjecture about the future population levels in "1000 years", as well as your incorrect assessment of the cost of cryosuspension, but I will point out that defeating aging is far less of a challenge than reviving a vitrified person. Assuming that the revived person is instantiated in a "meat body" (which is not a given), undoing age-related damage will likely be a side effect of undoing suspension-related damage. In fact, I can scarcely imagine a scenario where that wouldn't be the case.

      * I don't know that being revived will be better than being dead, but a society that's a living hell is a society that won't be in a position to revive cryonics patients. And if nothing else, being revived gives me the ability to make that decision for myself. If I'm revived and for some reason prefer oblivion then I can simply find something large and fast moving to step in front of. If I rot in the ground then I rob myself of any control over my fate. (And for the record, I don't believe in Heaven either, so that argument is a waste of time.)

      --
      Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
    8. Re:Geek funeral? by pwizard2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What about the ice crystals destroying all your cell walls?

      Plants have cell walls. (it's what allows them to stand up) Animals, including homo sapiens, have cell membranes only.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    9. Re:Geek funeral? by 2.7182 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but they did manage to defrost Walt Disney to create Steve Jobs.

  4. I don't know about you guys... by nebaz · · Score: 3, Funny

    but I want a bunch of screaming Klingons at mine.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  5. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I need my smokes to get through work

    Not really, you don't. It's a choice. There are other ways.

    My smokes pay for the roads, education, utilities...

    If I had my way, they wouldn't. Every cent earned on cigarette taxes would go towards a public anti-smoking campaign. If drugs were legalized and taxed, all the money made from the taxes would also go towards a public anti-drug campaign.

    --
    Qxe4
  6. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Anti-smoking jab"?

    Surely a recommendation to not do what recently (and slowly, and no doubt unpleasantly) killed your brother in a post about his funeral arrangements isn't on the same level as cheap moralistic point-scoring.

    It's like comparing a Jack Thompson op-ed hit piece to a a eulogy for some kid who was shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    For the record, I think that anti-smoking campaigning took on a distasteful moralistic tone some time ago; but the notion that you can't mention the subject after watching your brother die slowly of it seems a bit much.

  7. fitting by Tim4444 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He went like so many of the electronic devices we cherish. At the end of the device's life, when the smoke clears, all that's left is a non-functioning box to collect the dust and some damn good memories.

    Well done. My sentiments to those left in the away team. Live long and prosper :)

  8. What to do with our corporeal remains by 1+a+bee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When we die our remains will be nothing more than a snapshot of the atoms we occupied right before we died. Had we lived a year longer, a good proportion of those atoms would have been replaced with new material we drank, ate and breathed in through the year. It is as if living is a type of standing wave through which matter flows.

    My point? I wouldn't care what happened to my remains. I was a wave, and all that remains of me are ripples left behind in a shared pool of memories.

    1. Re:What to do with our corporeal remains by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Funny

      Far out man.

      **Tooooooooooooooooooooke**

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:What to do with our corporeal remains by pegasustonans · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't care what happened to my remains. I was a wave, and all that remains of me are ripples left behind in a shared pool of memories.

      Well, in most cases, my opinion is that treating remains in a certain way helps families say goodbye.

      So, of course you don't care what happens to your remains, but it's not *for* you. Whatever ceremony greets your departure from this earth is primarily for your family. So, you should at least care about your funeral for your family's sake. This is the main chance for them to say goodbye.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  9. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, the guy probably died from lung cancer or some other complication that resulted from smoking. The dangers of smoking are well known, even and especially to smokers. Give the grieving family member a break for putting in an anti-smoking message into the write-up. You might think smoking is great and gets you through the day, but if you leave this world due to some smoking complication, I doubt the grieving members of your family that you leave behind are going to give a crap about the roads you helped build with a couple bucks in tobacco taxes seeing as how you're no longer with them.

    --
    Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  10. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFS didn't put anyone down for smoking and it didn't suggest we tax smokers, all it said was *don't smoke*. Which is actually pretty good advice.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  11. Just imagine a beowulf cluster of these! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would that count as a zombie botnet?

    *ducks*

    RIP

  12. Re:Seriously? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Beyond the starkly limited availability of "timeless" options, humans are a bit to material and stuck within the times. That's how it goes. In a sense, "timeless" isn't even the right thing for a coffin.

    Here was a person, who existed in a quite definite span of time and space, who was (no doubt) strongly formed by that time and place, and who now exists only as a period artifact and in the memory of others who shared some of that time.

    If we were timeless, we wouldn't need funerals.

  13. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by pegasustonans · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do we need the anti-smoking jab

    I don't know. If your sister died due to liver-failure as a result of alcoholism, wouldn't it be understandable if you disliked alcohol?

    If one of my siblings died as a result of an addiction to cigarettes, I believe I too would warn people about the risks of smoking.

    I don't believe it's a jab, either, just harsh reality.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  14. Re:I'm sorry for your loss by MrMista_B · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we can't laugh at death, then we are truly dead.

  15. Other Geek options by RKThoadan · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are several more traditional geek options. You can donate your brain to the Harvard Brain Tissue Resource Center and get their cool "I'm going to Harvard!" card. Plastination is a pretty interesting option as well. There's also the more generic "donate to science" option, which usually means you get to help train the next doctors going through Gross Anatomy. I have to recommend the book "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers" for more information. It's really a hilarious read and very educational.

    1. Re:Other Geek options by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My great aunt, who was at a certain point the oldest women in the world, was the ueber geek. She decided when she was 85 that her body would go to science. She became 85. Her motivation? The young kids could learn from it and there would be no hassle with funerals for anybody.

      The doctor who examined her made his findings public. Some morons wanted to sue that doctor for privacy invasion or something like that. Those idiots where no family, relatives or whatsoever. Thus they had no idea that my great aunt wanted EVERYBODY to learn from whatever they found.

      So in a sense, she open sourced her remains.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  16. Re:Seriously? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The hardware is outdated now. It is a Sparcstation IPC with a 25Mhz CPU. They started making those in about 1990.

    It is geek history and a far better thing to be buried in then an fiberglass and steel coffin.

    If I have to be placed in anything but the raw dirt it is not a bad choice.

  17. Not far off... by rantingkitten · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My father actually has it written that he wants bagpipe music and Admiral Kirk's speech about Spock from Wrath Of Khan at his funeral. If we can find a casket that looks like a photon torpedo, so much the better.

    I think I should clarify with him whether he wants someone to recite Kirk's speech, or have that video played.

    --
    mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    1. Re:Not far off... by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 3, Informative

      My father actually has it written that he wants bagpipe music and Admiral Kirk's speech about Spock from Wrath Of Khan at his funeral. If we can find a casket that looks like a photon torpedo, so much the better. I think I should clarify with him whether he wants someone to recite Kirk's speech, or have that video played.

      What you want is this company's cocoon model coffin: http://www.uono.de/english/home.html

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    2. Re:Not far off... by TrekkieTechie · · Score: 3, Informative

      If we can find a casket that looks like a photon torpedo, so much the better.

      I believe you're looking for Eternal Image's Star Trek Casket, inspired by the scene you describe.

  18. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not really, you don't. It's a choice. There are other ways.

    Homicide is illegal in most countries.

    --
    Me failed English...
    FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
  19. Re:I'm signed up to have my head put in cryostorag by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Personally, I wanna be cremated and stored in a coffee can or something til the first day of spring. Then dig a hole, dump my ashes in it, and plant a tree on top of them in the yard of the house I spent my last days in.

    It's already in my will that way, changed from 'cremate me, mix my ashes with 6 oz of the best weed my estate can score, and smoke me in my fave bar' that I had in it in my 20's. Guess I'm getting old...

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  20. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by radish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please don't ever have a family. My wife had a father who smoked like a chimney, and now she's saddled with serious asthma and allergies which cause her real medical problems, simply because of his selfishness. If you dislike life so much you want to cut your own short, be my guest, but don't condemn anyone else to the same fate.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  21. My minty Sinistar arcade game = open casket for me by wernst · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a small-but-nice vintage arcade game collection in my living room, and it occurred to me a few years back that these old upright cabinets would make for a pretty good coffin, especially my beloved Sinistar.

    Then genius struck: remove the monitor (and I guess the boards too - let another collector use 'em), slap my lifeless remains in there so my face is right behind the glass, and BOOM, we have the makings of a great open-casket for what will surely be a somber wake.

    Extra points for the nerdy friend who manages to get the game's synthesized voice to occasionally cry out BEWARE! I live!.

  22. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The dangers of cheeseburgers are also well known, but I don't hear families whose loved ones die of heart disease feel the need to get on soapboxes when people die of heart disease. Why is Mickey-D's acceptable, and Marlboro's worth offering advice on?

    I realize people get a lot of slack when a family member dies, and should. But I can certainly understand why smokers get a bit tired when complete strangers feel the need to offer off-the-cuff advice against smoking (as if smokers didn't realize it's unhealthy).

    --
    AccountKiller
  23. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by pegasustonans · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's not really a fair argument. After all, who ever died from not smoking?

    It's a perfectly fair argument. If you die from a smoking-related illness, then you have smoking to blame for your death. If you die from an obesity-related illness, then you have too many cheeseburgers to blame for your death.

    Are you going to suggest that, if someone dies from a smoking-related illness, it doesn't matter because they would have died someday anyway? Well, sure, if that's the attitude, then just shoot heroin while you're driving the wrong direction on the freeway. When you die, however, be prepared for your family to resent your callous disregard for the consequences of drug abuse and reckless driving.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  24. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by jlarocco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I had my way, they wouldn't. Every cent earned on cigarette taxes would go towards a public anti-smoking campaign. If drugs were legalized and taxed, all the money made from the taxes would also go towards a public anti-drug campaign.

    Next up, we legalize gay marriage, tax it, and spend the revenue on a public anti-homosexuality campaign.

    Seriously, why can't people just mind their own business?

  25. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, why can't people just mind their own business?

    It's not surprising that someone arguing in favor of smoking is having a hard time understanding that smoking doesn't impact ONLY the smoker. Sure is disappointing, though.

  26. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is possible to quit. If you won't work on the problems in your life that make you smoke, and you're subjecting someone else to your secondhand smoke, then fuck you. I don't care how addicted you think you are; it might be true, but it's no excuse for making anyone else breathe your nasty smoke. I say this as a repeat quitter (over a year this time so far though) and when I smoked, I did my best to get downwind. Your right to clean air supersedes my right to feed my monkey.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by chubs730 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Homicide is illegal in most countries.

    We should legalize it, tax it, and spend all the money earned towards an anti-homicide campaign.

  28. As an alternative... by Genda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Powder his ashes into an ultrafine dust, mix with iron pigment, and print ASCII art with him on acid free paper. Once he's done being printed, anyone who loved or respected him could take a piece of him with them, mount, frame, and proudly display in their respective data centers... could a bit basher ask for any possible better fate?

  29. Re:No Subject by Bohiti · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh come on, it's:

    Dell, you're getting a dude!

  30. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If only everyone was so thoughtful- I'm 6 months pregnant now and it's amazing the smokers I know who rant and rave about how terrible women are who smoke while pregnant (I have never smoked in my life, personally)... But then insist on smoking while standing right next to me, or in the same house as me. I walk away, every time, but they act so clueless. Like it's suddenly so much better because it's second hand smoke instead? Thank you for being considerate.

  31. Very sorry to hear about your loss, Sam .. by cje · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. but what you did here was really awesome.

    Funerals and memorials should be about celebrating a person's life, not mourning a person's death. It appears that you and your brother both had a whimsical sense of humor, and that you were able to harness that and put together a very unique tribute that captured the essence of what he loved in life. I don't know how or when I'm going to go (nor do I want to) but when that time comes, I'd love to think that my family will be as creative and thoughtful as you were here.

    --
    We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
  32. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All of those things put vastly more stuff into the air than my cigarettes do.

    Have you ever blown into an automotive gas analyser? One lungful of cigarette smoke contains as much unburnt hydrocarbon as a 1988 Volvo 340 produces in three minutes of running at 2500rpm.

    Not to mention, you can actually *see* as well as smell cigarette smoke. You can't see (or shouldn't be able to see) car exhaust gases, and they don't really have much of a smell unless your engine is broken.

  33. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by syousef · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The dangers of cheeseburgers are also well known, but I don't hear families whose loved ones die of heart disease feel the need to get on soapboxes when people die of heart disease.

    You either are not a fat guy or you don't have a family that gives a damn. Fat guys do get hassled. Now you can quit smoking altogether. You can quit drinking alcohol altogether. You can quit drugs altogether. You can't quit eating altogether without death following in short order. Unlike cravings for drugs/alcohol/cigarettes hunger for food is normal and natural and not something you want to curve. Also people have very different hunger drives and metabolise their food very differently. Makes food one of the hardest addictions.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  34. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by YourExperiment · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So did I, for many years. Then one day I got pissed off at being addicted and kicked it, with no assistance (chemical or otherwise).

    The most important thing is wanting to give up. If you don't want to, then don't bother. It's your choice, after all.

  35. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by 10Ghz · · Score: 3, Informative

    No study has ever found a statistically significant risk of cancer due to 2nd hand smoke exposure.

    http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

    "The current Surgeon Generalâ(TM)s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack."

    "Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)."

    "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide."

    "Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades."

    And so forth. This isn't rocket-science people!

    And even if we assume that there is no risk when exposed to second hand smoke, what rights do smokers have to expose others to smoke that smells like shit, makes clothes smell like shit, makes other cough and generally feel bad etc. etc.? By that logic I should have the right to carry exposed septic-tanks in subway. Sure, it might smell bad, but there's no harm, right? Therefore others have no right to tell me what to do.

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  36. Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The current Surgeon Generalâ(TM)s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack."

    None of which has anything to do with cancer.

    "Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)."

    Which is largely a political action, not a scientific one. The study which the EPA cited to support this ruling has been roundly debunked.

    1998 Federal Judge William Osteen, who had a history of siding with the government on tobacco issues - vacated the study. He declared it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long. Here is an excerpt:

    "In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen."

    Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke

    Where's the study that shows it increases cancer risk? I'm not denying that it's harmful. It's clear that it does cause disease. It's just not clear that it causes cancer.

    Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide."

    Everything contains carcinogens. Including that burger you grilled. Showing that something contains carcinogens is not the same as showing that it causes cancer.

    And so forth. This isn't rocket-science people!

    No, it's health science which is significantly more complicated than rocket science. That's why it's important to make accurate claims. Argue that 2nd hand smoke is harmful, but do so with real data.

    By that logic I should have the right to carry exposed septic-tanks in subway.

    I wouldn't argue that anyone should be trapped in an enclosed space with a smoker. But if you choose to go someplace where the owner has allowed smoking, you really shouldn't complain. Smoking bans in public places are a good idea. Smoking bans in private establishments are not.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!