Kerosene Generator..How To?

Actually, not the appliance, but the REQUIREMENT to USE seat belts, was invented by insurance companies.
They don't really care about you or your safety. And they don't care about facts if it's safer or not.
They want to restrict or outlaw ANYTHING that MIGHT POSSIBLY cost them money. And they have enormous lobbying power.

Cigarette smoking is on their hit list.
Never has been proved to cause cancer, yet most folks ardently believe it has. In the 70's, Surgeon General Coop "Determined" cigarettes caused cancer, and that was printed on packs for 20 years. Eventually the "Papal Eddict" of Dr Coop got replaced with "Cigarettes cause cancer" printed on packs. Because everbody "KNOWS" this.
Insurance companies behind every step of it. If it "Might" cause cancer? Outlaw it! Don't want to pay out death benefits if not neccessary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-gordon/there-is-no-proof-that-ci_b_167157.html


http://txtwriter.com/onscience/articles/smokingcancer2.html
QUOTE:
However, over the 1950s and 1960s, the mounting evidence became increasingly difficult to ignore. Two lines of evidence were particularly telling. The first consisted of detailed information about cancer rates among smokers. The annual incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers is only a few per hundred thousand, but increases with the number of cigarettes smoked per day to a staggering 300 per hundred thousand for those smoking 30 cigarettes a day. The world’s longest-running survey of smoking, begun in 1951 in Britain, revealed that by 1994 the death rate for smokers was three times that for nonsmokers among men over 35.
END QUOTE

REALLY? Sound convincing? 300 cancer deaths among every 100,000 smokers? PROOF? Bad science. Bad statistical evidence.
Proof my hind end! The 99,700 smokers who didn't get cancer are typically ignored. Do most smokers drink alcohol? Would a larger % of non-smokers also likely be non-drinkers? Maybe drinking is the causal factor.

How many cancer patients of all types of cancer and smoking, non-smoking, city life, rural lifestyle, all nations and locales, all included. How many drink water sometimes? 100% God thats suspicious. Outlaw water!

 

I thought it was invented by airplane pilots so they wouldn't fall out.

 

Maybe it's the pilot is flying high, and the seatbelt holds the plane up?

 

Sometimes I say outrageous things. Why are folks outraged? Could it be that powerfull self-interested forces spend billions of dollars and millions of man hours on "forming" our opinions and facts for us?

So, gentlemen, consider "facts" you read or hear. Are they "informed opinion", or "formed" opinion?

 

"Maybe it's the pilot is flying high, and the seatbelt holds the plane up?"

Maybe in San Fransicko.

 

I know 2 things for sure about smoking.

First, I don't wake up in the morning coughing up crap from my lungs and listening to them wheeze on a big breath, unlike before.

Second, I've saved enough money over the 30 years since I quit to pay for my boat.

I really don't care if people smoke or not, but don't live in denial. It's a habit that makes you, your clothes, the air you exhale and your surroundings stink. Don't do it where I can smell it.

PDW

 

Well said PD . To be honest I was going to reply but --sigh-it juts seemed so stupid to reply to a post like that.

Yes the stink is awful I wonder why smokers dont go and set fire to an old mattress and in hale it, they can stand there all day inhaling a smoldering mattress and cheap too.

More alarming is the health risk to others inhaling smoke.

 

non-smokers and ex-smokers...most intolerant anti-freedom folks on the planet.

 

quote
More alarming is the health risk to others inhaling smoke.
end quote

The article I posted says only a few per 100,000 non-smokers develope lung cancer. another article I read but can't find, says living with a smoker increases chance of cancer 30%.
The post says 300 per 100,000 smokers get lung cancer. Also says this is 3 times the rate as for non-smokers.
So, are a "few" non=smokers per 100,000 a hundred gets cancer? And a 30% increase = 130 per 100,000?

F-truth and T-truth gentlemen. T-truth are facts. F-truth is what people WANT to be true. F-truth = Feels like the Truth.

Show me statistics, how many per 100,000 smokers and how many living with a smoker that is a more impressive argument in your favor than the 0.003 of 1 % risk for smokers and
0.0013 of 1 % risk for non-smokers living with smokers.

Cough up the data! I posted mine! Defend your un-defendable position! You can't!


like 2000 Troy's signature...Problem is what people "KNOW" that ain't so!

 

My point wasn't to laud the benefits of smoking. Or to abolish seatbelts.
My point is:
People are more addicted to their personal opinions than anything else in existance. Facts won't cure or dissuade folks from believing what they habitually choose to believe. That's why forums such as this are very valuable. Out of many responses, you can hopefully weed out the unfounded opinions and come up with a few usable facts.

 

There you go again you see! tobacco smoke smells the same to me as a house on fire or a smoldering old carpet in a dumpster.

You seem to think that non smokers are enjoying your smoke, --no we dont no matter what the adverts say and no we don't secretly fil our lungs with your smoke when you not looking.

If your windows were open and I lit a fire in the garden you would be annoyed would you not?

Its not intolerant its down right disgust and unaccepable, not just being difficult.

 

I'm courteous with my smoking. I go outside to smoke. In the USA it's now illegal to smoke indoors in public places. Not in Mexico, but I go outside anyway.
Back when there was still smoking sections in US restaurants, usually about 20% of the tables, many times I watched this phenomenon. A couple in front of me in line waiting for a table, would accept seats in a smoking area when the alternative was a 15 minute wait for non-smoking as they'd requested.
Non-smokers don't have a moral edge over smokers. Since the ban on public indoor smoking was hardly instigated by smokers, I suggest it's non-smokers that are selfish, self centered, less considerate, less tolerant, and enemies of freedom. Seems self evident. Nobody tried to force non-smokers to smoke.

 

Freedom of choice has to be for all, or none. Whenever people pass a law restricting some segment of the populations freedom, they damage freedom for all. Because having established a precedent, it's easier for some other group to restrict a different freedom. Eventually nobody has freedom of choice.

 

Last week in Germany, the entertainer Johan Heesters died at the age of 108. He still performed until 3 years ago and smoked all of his life.

But it won't change anyone's attitude towards smoking.

I do admit that smoking is a strange habit, but so is drinking diluted ethanol and eating dead animals. Sooner or later both will be banned as well. All it takes is a few fundamentalists and a large crowd of followers.

 

Well, I'm addicted to tobacco. Started smoking when I was 13 and now I'm 63. That's 50 years and I'm healthy.
I don't drink. Ocassionally I drink a glass of wine, or a beer with food, and sometimes an irish coffee, but I drink so little amount of alcohol so seldom, people get a more accurate, clearer idea if I say I don't drink than if I said don't drink much.
But I don't fault people who do enjoy a drink.

Eating dead animals doesn't seem strange to me. When I check my teeth in the mirror after brushing, there's the canines. The fangs.