decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
"no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke" is stupid | 217 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke" is stupid
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 08:20 PM EST
There, there. The term was "level of exposure to
second hand smoke". At some point of dilution the
term loses its meaning and becomes synonymous with
"breathing anywhere on planet Earth".
Please be reasonable. You are getting precariously
close to making a strawman argument.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Now you're talking homeopathic levels of smoke which make it medicinal :) [N/T]
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:54 AM EST

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"no safe level "
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 09:24 AM EST
Saying there is no safe level is probably factually accurate. There is however a
level that does not measurably increase the risk for the average person. Nobody
though is willing to set this level because not everyone is average and if you
are the person who dies from exposure just below the declared level you are just
as dead as anyone else!

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:54 AM EST
I raised my eyebrows at that also. So now on my "indefinite to do
list" (most of which will probably never get done) I've added looking into
the evidence presented at trial that led to that particular finding of fact.

If anybody can point me to some good links about that, thereby saving me the
search time, I would appreciate it. I have long been skeptical about statistics
regarding the number of deaths from second hand smoke. I am sure that in the
past exposure to second hand smoke has been a problem. But it strikes me that
in the U.S. at least that things have gone too far in the direction of trying to
prevent exposure to even the slightest whiff of second hand smoke. And I say
that as a non-smoker.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )