http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/ethanol-041807.html

The people who benefit are the people who get the subsidies. They are the same people that own the politicians. Which is why we need to get different politicians elected, but it is hard to unseat an incumbent. Just look at the past election. We know for a fact that many, many house members should have been ousted because of their failure on the economic crisis but few were replaced. Everyone seems to believe it was someone else’s politician to blame not their own. So, ethanol subsidies will continue, Fannie and Freddie won’t have to change bad business practices. Acorn will also be subsidized by public money and next election we will have the same fiasco.

Hopefully the auto industry will be allowed to go into bankrupcy, so they can end their failed business practices. If we bail them out they will continue to hire and use people who are inferior business people.

From a sociological point of view, if we take into account the flow and stock data Hickman’s thought experiment is based on, this increase of schizophrenia in the population groups is the most likely outcome, but here we should not forget the model is also based on assumptions. So far, the medical statement has not been faced yet with a situation where cannabis has been the cause of permanent brain damage or incurable schizophrenia, so it is rather difficult to say whether an increase in prevalence and incidence to new super strength skunk will necessarily mean an increase of incurable mental health problems.

Regarding the study of human flows or social sciences in general it is rather difficult to point out causal links. Association between variables does not necessarily mean some of them must be the cause or have a knock-on effect upon the rest. Other difficulty to pinpoint casual links shows its ugly face when not all the relevant variables are included in the sociological model. There seems to be a correlation between cannabis and the surge of violent crime but so far we have not a relevant study yet on cannabis resin use, as a likely variable operating on its own, and the incidence of violent crime.

Cambridge University Professor Peter Jones’ chart on cannabis use is withdrawal symptoms is rather surprising since an explanatory reduction to chemical compounds and the activity of the brain has not been possible yet in this sense. Even if we concede Professor Jones the occurrence of these variables, the account is still problematic as it cannot include those cases where withdrawal from this substance did not show withdrawal symptoms at all. In the Lancet report, cannabis appears as the third less addictive substance, only surpassed by steroids and LSD (1st and 2nd less addictive substances respectively).

Due to the chemical properties of THC, one of cannabis’ main active ingredients, since it remains in the body after a month of its ingestion, UN representative Antonio Maria Costa’s claim that users should be treated as those arrested for driving under the influence might seem to have some support. If not as dangerous as alcohol is, driving after its use is still just as problematic as driving while speaking on the phone. The medical establishment is aware of cases where studying or other tasks that require concentration have been achieved under the influence of cannabis resin, but there’s also an increment in the amount of time needed to fulfill those tasks as distraction and other factors are very likely to lead users away from it every now and again. This does not necessarily mean “distraction”, as a consequence of cannabis use, is a permanent damage difficult to avoid once it settles in since withdrawal from it always improves concentration levels, but it does underline the fact that laziness and apathy are always important factors that break in when users recur to it.

Even though THC lacks a nitrogen atom in its molecule it can be safely included in those psychotropic compounds’ list that build up upon benzene or indolic rings if we take on board the effect upon the body. The schizoid episodes to be found in cannabis users are of a lesser importance and intensity than those commonly associated with substances such as LSD but this can be explained just recurring to the way this substance breaks in into the body. An ingestion of cannabis resin, instead of its usual use in water pipes or rollups, would put users certainly closer to those psychotic episodes so characteristic, for instance, in indolic compounds. However, any psychiatrist or psychologist worth its salt knows how easy it is to get rid of these symptoms with proper psychological help in case there were not a latent physiological predisposition to develop schizophrenia or psychosis prior to cannabis use. And once the problem has been sorted, it is very unlikely users will go back to previous stages or positions.

Here it seems sensible to underline the importance of proper technical vocabulary to better give account for these social phenomena. There is of course a margin in everything to defend ones’ personal preferences or inclinations, but the data we draw our conclusions from must be accurate. The IoS states that super strength variety skunk is 10 times stronger than cannabis resin (25 for The Daily Mail, 19th March 2007), but this datum is not accurate at all. Cannabis resin is far stronger than cannabis itself since “resin” is one of cannabis’ by products. Even the oily stuff of regular plants will still yield the highest concentrations of THC as plant and resin work out on a ratio of 100kgms/1grm. Super strength skunk can only be stronger than cannabis resin if the latter means “adulterated resin”, which is still available today. The new variety of the plant’s higher concentration levels can be seen here as the user’s ultimate attempt to avoid cheat and provide with a better product for himself in a world dominated by gangs and criminal mafias. Super strength skunk seems to sell well because there is a social demand for it.

Correlations between higher concentrations of THC and addiction, even if these variables seem to go hand in hand, should not lead us to think there is a casual link between them. “Cannabis addiction” is a sociological term and it should not be used in medical explanations if its use beguiles readers into thinking there are physical and physiological factors that can give account for addiction itself in this sense. It is obvious social activities such as biting your fingers or gamming on line can be treated as addictions as well-and surely there are endogenous chemical compounds and molecules that must be involved in them (perhaps as a source of dopamine or other endorphins)-but all of these cases always present readers with weak individuals and soft characters, which exemplify extremes that cannot be helped or prevented with proper medical care.

The problem with this kind of study is that it doesn’t go the whole way. It is probably true – cannabis can cause schizophrenia, along with a whole host of other mental illnesses. And real addiction to weed will damage all your opportunities such as your job, your studies, your family relationships.

But switch it the other way round. People with mental illness are more likely to smoke or reach for the bong anyway. Many people are aware of their situation, and their powerlessness in it, and would prefer to get high and forget about it. Wouldn’t you?

A few tokes of a splee won’t turn you into a raving lunatic or divide your personality like a pizza. Recreational drug use isn’t a sure fire way to madness, depression and neurosis; it is, however, a remarkably effective way of dealing with it. Stuff like maijuana, cocaine, alcohol, etc. is a comfort to the sufferer. It will change your personality, often for the worse in the case of abuse, and therein the downward spiral begins.

There are (shock horror!) benefits to smoking weed. I’m off the stuff myself, but I still get cravings when I’m stressed. I know all sorts of people that smoke weed, in fact I’d be harder pressed to find someone of my generation that didn’t. They’re not exactly running businesses and flying around in convertables, but you got to admit, my generation hasn’t exactly been handed the path to opportunity on a plate. Look at the situation we have today.

If we screw up in school, for whatever reason, we’re screwed. We screw up our job, we’re screwed. And that’s it. There’s no second chance. After 19 we have to pay sky high college fees to get our GCSEs back. Or if we want to go to Uni we have to borrow a mortgage just to get the education we need to be financially successful. if we don’t want to borrow, we’re screwed. If we don’t want to play poker with the future, we’re screwed. The apprenticeship system in my county and all the counties around it – it’s not lucrative. If there’s no money in us, then we’re considered dossers and dropouts. You want a self fulfilling prophecy, you’ve got one there. And the number of kids my age who have no future except for JSA meetings or McJobs is incredible. We have no rich parents to bail us out. Does that make it any easier to resist the spliff that’s being passed around? Or to not open up a can and think, hell with it?

You want to know something about drugs? Ever thought about why doling out meds is all the rage? Because they get pushed on us, that’s why. Christ, the number of kids on citalopram, fluoxetine, risperadone, all because they went to the doctor and said they were feeling down and couldn’t cope with stuff? How is stuffing you with drugs going to help? Is the medical community going to think about that??? It’s all around me. That’s because there’s money in it. Big pharmaceutical companies want their buck. So how is that proper medical care. You might even have a real mental illness, lurking away in the corners of your mind. But the sad reality is that the medical establishment just doesn’t care, and that weed helps smooth that fact over. Recreational drugs are cheap, easy to obtain, and not overly harmful to the human body or brain.

So don’t look at it and think weed causes schizophrenia. Think about it the other way round. That goes for you, doctor.

From a sociological point of view, if we take into account the flow and stock data Hickman’s thought experiment is based on, this increase of schizophrenia in the population groups is the most likely outcome, but here we should not forget the model is also based on assumptions. So far, the medical statement has not been faced yet with a situation where cannabis has been the cause of permanent brain damage or incurable schizophrenia, so it is rather difficult to say whether an increase in prevalence and incidence to new super strength skunk will necessarily mean an increase of incurable mental health problems.

Regarding the study of human flows or social sciences in general it is rather difficult to point out causal links. Association between variables does not necessarily mean some of them must be the cause or have a knock-on effect upon the rest. Other difficulty to pinpoint casual links shows its ugly face when not all the relevant variables are included in the sociological model. There seems to be a correlation between cannabis and the surge of violent crime but so far we have not a relevant study yet on cannabis resin use, as a likely variable operating on its own, and the incidence of violent crime.

Cambridge University Professor Peter Jones’ chart on cannabis use is withdrawal symptoms is rather surprising since an explanatory reduction to chemical compounds and the activity of the brain has not been possible yet in this sense. Even if we concede Professor Jones the occurrence of these variables, the account is still problematic as it cannot include those cases where withdrawal from this substance did not show withdrawal symptoms at all. In the Lancet report, cannabis appears as the third less addictive substance, only surpassed by steroids and LSD (1st and 2nd less addictive substances respectively).

Due to the chemical properties of THC, one of cannabis’ main active ingredients, since it remains in the body after a month of its ingestion, UN representative Antonio Maria Costa’s claim that users should be treated as those arrested for driving under the influence might seem to have some support. If not as dangerous as alcohol is, driving after its use is still just as problematic as driving while speaking on the phone. The medical establishment is aware of cases where studying or other tasks that require concentration have been achieved under the influence of cannabis resin, but there’s also an increment in the amount of time needed to fulfill those tasks as distraction and other factors are very likely to lead users away from it every now and again. This does not necessarily mean “distraction”, as a consequence of cannabis use, is a permanent damage difficult to avoid once it settles in since withdrawal from it always improves concentration levels, but it does underline the fact that laziness and apathy are always important factors that break in when users recur to it.

Even though THC lacks a nitrogen atom in its molecule it can be safely included in those psychotropic compounds’ list that build up upon benzene or indolic rings if we take on board the effect upon the body. The schizoid episodes to be found in cannabis users are of a lesser importance and intensity than those commonly associated with substances such as LSD but this can be explained just recurring to the way this substance breaks in into the body. An ingestion of cannabis resin, instead of its usual use in water pipes or rollups, would put users certainly closer to those psychotic episodes so characteristic, for instance, in indolic compounds. However, any psychiatrist or psychologist worth its salt knows how easy it is to get rid of these symptoms with proper psychological help in case there were not a latent physiological predisposition to develop schizophrenia or psychosis prior to cannabis use. And once the problem has been sorted, it is very unlikely users will go back to previous stages or positions.

Here it seems sensible to underline the importance of proper technical vocabulary to better give account for these social phenomena. There is of course a margin in everything to defend ones’ personal preferences or inclinations, but the data we draw our conclusions from must be accurate. The IoS states that super strength variety skunk is 10 times stronger than cannabis resin (25 for The Daily Mail, 19th March 2007), but this datum is not accurate at all. Cannabis resin is far stronger than cannabis itself since “resin” is one of cannabis’ by products. Even the oily stuff of regular plants will still yield the highest concentrations of THC as plant and resin work out on a ratio of 100kgms/1grm. Super strength skunk can only be stronger than cannabis resin if the latter means “adulterated resin”, which is still available today. The new variety of the plant’s higher concentration levels can be seen here as the user’s ultimate attempt to avoid cheat and provide with a better product for himself in a world dominated by gangs and criminal mafias. Super strength skunk seems to sell well because there is a social demand for it.

Correlations between higher concentrations of THC and addiction, even if these variables seem to go hand in hand, should not lead us to think there is a casual link between them. “Cannabis addiction” is a sociological term and it should not be used in medical explanations if its use beguiles readers into thinking there are physical and physiological factors that can give account for addiction itself in this sense. It is obvious social activities such as biting your fingers or gamming on line can be treated as addictions as well-and surely there are endogenous chemical compounds and molecules that must be involved in them (perhaps as a source of dopamine or other endorphins)-but all of these cases always present readers with weak individuals and soft characters, which exemplify extremes that cannot be helped or prevented with proper medical care.

I’ve been dependent on cannabis (in particular, skunk) for a number of years. I don’t think it is a physical addiction, rather a psychological one that I use to deal with mental health problems, and this is supported by the fact that since it has stopped helping me feel better, I have had no trouble staying off it.

My brother also used it for two years before he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, but the doctors involved believed the cannabis to be a form of self medication rather than the cause of such a profound mental illness.

Out of the people I know who have developed psychotic illnesses, including my brother, they have all smoked pot, but they have all taken pills, lsd and god knows what else. They also all come from difficult and sometimes traumatic backgrounds. And certainly within my family there seems to be a clear genetic predisposition.

I think that the idea that cannabis can cause psychosis that lasts beyond the use of it is not only ridiculous but irresponsible. Too many parents ignore psychotic symptoms in their children because they think they’re on drugs. And it’s not just parents, I’ve seen a 17 year old manic depressive turned away from a mental ward because they believed his psychosis to be purely caused by cannabis. This was not the case and it took him a further year to get a proper diagnosis and be treated.

Lastly, I have never in my life met a violent stoner. I know there was a case in the news recently, but he seemed to be quite clearly psychotic, whether it was drug induced or not, this is hardly the norm, for psychosis or cannabis use.

MONDAY, Aug. 25 (HealthDay News) — Exposure to burning incense over long periods of time raises the risk of developing cancers of the upper respiratory tract, a new study shows.

Interestingly, the practice did not increase the overall risk of lung cancer.

"Given that our results are backed by numerous experimental studies showing that incense is a powerful producer of particulate matter and that incense smoke contains carcinogenic substances, I believe incense should be used with caution," said study author Dr. Jeppe Friborg, of the department of epidemiology research at Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark. "That is, frequent use in rooms where people live should be minimized, or at least sufficient ventilation should be secured. In our study, we find the increased risk of cancer to be present in individuals reporting frequent use of incense for many years, thus, repeated exposure for years should probably be avoided."

Others echoed the thought.

"The American Lung Association is going to add it as a risk factor," said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the association. "It’s not nearly the danger of smoking a pack a day for 20 years, but it’s a danger."

Not only is incense burned regularly as part of daily life in large swaths of Asia, the practice is also popular among certain segments in the West.

Incense burning produces particulate matter and is known to contain possible carcinogens such as polyaromatic hyodrcarbons (PAHs), carbonyls and benzene.

There have also been reports linking the burning of incense with cancer but the results have been inconsistent.

For this study, researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with more than 61,000 Singapore Chinese aged 45 to 74 who were cancer-free at the beginning of the study.

Incense burning almost doubled the risk of developing squamous cell upper respiratory tract carcinomas including nasal/sinus, tongue, mouth and laryngeal. There was an increased risk both in smokers and in nonsmokers, pointing to an independent effect of incense smoke.

There was no overall increased risk of lung cancer, but it did heighten the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

Will incense go the way of tobacco? Not necessarily, said some experts.

"Certainly I think bathing yourself in particles is probably not the smartest thing in the world . . . but I think very few people fill up their room with incense," said Dr. Arthur Frankel, a professor of medicine at Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine and director of the Cancer Center, Cancer Research Institute and Division of Hematology/Oncology at Scott & White in Temple.

The findings, which are in the Oct. 1 issue of Cancer, might also point researchers toward other household practices that should be investigated.

"It’s a population-based study, which means that you can make an association but not necessarily a conclusion," said Dr. Erin Fleener, a clinical assistant professor in internal medicine at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine and an oncologist at the Bryan-College Station Cancer Clinic. "It probably promotes more work in the area of routine household items and things we need to be looking at more prospectively to make a clear cause-and-effect relationship."

In general, though, it’s not a bad idea to avoid environmental pollutants of various types.

"Anything that affects air quality negatively is not a good thing," said Dr. Len Horvitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "Burning in general and the release of smoke, these things are certainly to be avoided. At the very least, chemical irritants will set off asthma, and that’s reversible. Cancer is not reversible."

"This is not unlike the type of risk that one experiences from secondhand tobacco smoke," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. "At the end of the day, people who use incense casually, I don’t think that’s a cause for major concern, but those cultures which embrace incense as part of their daily lifestyles have to consider this has a real potential risk for cancer."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080825/hl_hsn/longtermexposuretoincenseraisescancerrisk;_ylt=AgTQT4Gkj.RpB6wNuLTUOPUDW7oF

wow didn’t know that, thanks for sharing. I don’t burn them but my dad does. this info will come in handy.

Do you believe our town is as clean as it could be? Everyday you walk the streets of our city and smell that nasty smoke which smokers leave behind. All those chemicals and poisons can not be good to have floating around in the air. Smokers have an adverse effect not only on themselves, but also to those people around them as well. Smokers are trashing our peaceful town by just throwing their cigarette butts on the ground where we all have to walk and our children have to play. This type of filth is not acceptable. Our city deserves to be a clean place suitable for all of those who live in it. I am proposing that we put a new law into place that bans smoking in all public areas in our town. I am advocating for this change because smoking exposes innocent people to secondhand smoke, it fills our town with unwanted filth, and because it encourages negative health actions by letting children watch adults who are smoking.
Smoking out in public not only damages smokers’ bodies, but also those who have to be around them. Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers. It lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. It contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. Secondhand smoke causes almost 50,000 deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year. Therefore, if we ban smoking in all public places in our town we will be able to prevent many diseases and deaths from occurring. Together we can make our town a healthier place to live.

What can I do to make this better?

Well, I’d like to first say that you have a pretty solid basis here, but I would add some stylistic changes to increase the persuasive function of the essay.

First, don’t name smokers as the cause right away.
start by just pointing out all the filth, getting your audience agreeing with you, THEN you blame it on the smokers. If you lay blame to quickly, your audience may think you’re finger-pointing or presumptuous, and that’s not persuasive.

Second, I would make the descriptions more vivid. Don’t just stop by saying that there’s filth and smoke, but DESCRIBE the experience, it’ll be more convincing,
other than that it’s good

Believe it or not, conventional, petrochemical-based cleaning products are major contributors to the toxicity of your home. They are the only household products that are regulated under the 1960 Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act. In addition, it is difficult to determine exactly how hazardous cleaning products are, since manufacturers are not required to disclose ingredients.

But many cleaning products include chlorine, ammonia, artificial petroleum-based fragrances, detergents and many more ingredients that are known or suspected to be toxic to the human body. In fact, many of the chemicals that are unregulated and yet found in conventional household cleaning products are not allowed in workplaces due to Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations.

Many people do not yet appreciate the significant benefits on their health and on the environment of using natural cleaning products. However, since synthetic, petroleum-based cleaning products came into widespread use in the 1950s, we have seen significant problems, such as 1)Contamination of our water, including aquifers, lakes, rivers, streams and oceans, 2)Increased air pollution, including indoor air pollution, 3)Ecosystem imbalances, including loss of biodiversity and reductions in natural animal habitats, and 4)Increased cancer rates.

Most of us have grown up using various cleaning products and don’t normally think of them as containing toxins. However, the following is a list of common cleaning product ingredients, possible side effects and some of the products these ingredients can be found in:

Ammonia is commonly found in glass cleaners, all-purpose cleaners, disinfectants and more. However, it can irritate the skin, eyes and respiratory passages, is very toxic when inhaled in concentrated form, and can affect ecosystems leading to adverse effects to plants, animals and fish.

Glass windows can actually be cleaned very effectively with just a spray bottle filled with either club soda or a 50/50 solution of vinegar and water. There are also several natural cleaning companies that manufacture very effective, non-toxic glass cleaners.

Note: If you have been cleaning windows with commercial products for a while, you may have some wax build-up that needs to be removed with a little rubbing alcohol before you can use the above solutions effectively.

Artificial fragrances are derived in large part from petrochemicals. Some are carcinogenic, and others contain or release formaldehyde. They often cause headaches, skin irritation, nausea and allergies. They are found in many cosmetic and personal care products, as well as in various cleaning supplies like laundry detergents, fabric softeners and dryer sheets.

Chlorine is one of the most heavily used chemicals today, despite a 1993 resolution by the American Public Health Association urging the American industry to stop using chlorine. Chlorine causes the most poisonings in our homes each year in the U.S. There is growing evidence that chlorinated drinking water causes bladder and rectal cancer. Chlorine can irritate the lungs, damage skin, eyes and other membranes.

Chlorine is listed in the 1990 Clean Air Act as a hazardous air pollutant. It also reacts readily with other substances to create other dangerous compounds such as dioxins. Studies have shown a direct link between cancer and other health problems such as immune system dysfunction and exposure to dioxins. Chlorine is found in bleached paper products, such as paper towels, toilet paper, etc. It is also found in dishwasher detergent, laundry bleach, tub and tile cleaners and more.

Petroleum distillates such as toluene, xylene and benzene are found in many laundry stain removers, pesticides, furniture polish and other home cleaners. They are skin, respiratory and eye irritants, and many of them are carcinogenic.

Phenols are found in laundry detergents, disinfectants, all-purpose cleaners and furniture polish. They can cause swelling and hives, and are suspected carcinogens.

When we clean, we put these substances into the air that we breathe. We breathe 10 to 20 thousand liters of air per day, so if toxins are contained in that air, we will be inhaling them along with the air. Toxic residue is also left on our clothes and on our dishes when we used conventional cleaners. We then wear these clothes all day, allowing these chemicals to be absorbed through our skin, and eat and drink off of these dishes, obviously ingesting some of these chemicals along with our food and beverages.

The use of these and other hazardous chemicals in our home day after day is especially problematic for children. Their immune systems and bodies are not yet fully developed and they often end up absorbing more of these chemicals than adults because of their tendency to put things in their mouth and to play on the floor. Their lower body weights also mean that they are being exposed to higher levels of contaminants per pound of body weight than adults are.

Most of us have been conditioned to believe that we must use powerful chemical disinfectants such as bleach, pine and ammonia cleaners to really clean. The truth is, hazardous disinfectants are not necessary to effectively clean. Bi-O-Kleen and other natural cleaning product manufacturers offer safe, non-toxic, natural, effective alternatives for all your cleaning tasks.

Look for natural cleaning products that are chlorine & phosphate free with no artificial colors or fragrances. You don’t necessarily have to replace all your cleaning products overnight, but each time you run out, try a natural cleaner instead!

Karen Pijuan
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/everyday-household-cleaners-a-major-contributor-to-toxicity-in-your-home-134395.html

Gasoline contains benzene, depending on the source of gasoline, and countries, ranges of concentration of benzene in gasoline have been reported as 1 to 6%. Gasoline is also used as an industrial solvent and workers commonly experience inhalation and skin exposure. In my practice, it is not unusual to hear from workers that “I washed my hands with gasoline to remove paint daily” or “the smell was so strong that I got dizzy”, demonstrating substantial exposure to gasoline ongoing on a daily basis. Since benzene is a known human carcinogen, it would be expected that gasoline will be also a hematopoietic toxic and cancer causing agent as well. Indeed, Aksey et al as early as 1928 reported aplastic anemia, and in 1941, Machele et al reported thrombocytopenia from gasoline intoxication. Other hematopoietic malignancies have been reported as a result of gasoline exposure. Epidemiological studies of workers and filling station attendees have shown genotoxic effects at very low benzene from gasoline vapor exposure. Brandt et al have demonstrated genotoxic effects in workers exposed to low levels of benzene from gasoline. Santos-Mello et al have shown chromosomal deletions in lymphocytes of workers exposed to gasoline as attendants. Infante et al reported hematopoietic malignancy in petrol exposed workers. Similar exposures to gasoline in garage mechanics and filling stations have been reported. What are the health effects of exposure to gasoline vapors? Gas cans emit pollutants such as hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). These pollutants can contribute to health problems that may affect homeowners, their families, and the community. VOC can produce ozone, which may cause respiratory problems for those with cardiac or respiratory diseases. Chemicals in these substances can also react in the air to form ground-level ozone (smog), which has been linked to a number of respiratory effects. EPA has developed a Web site related to ground-level ozone. Benzene: Exposure to benzene may cause irritation of the skin, eyes, and upper respiratory tract as well as blisters due to dermal exposure. Long-term exposure to benzene may cause blood disorders, reproductive and developmental disorders, and cancer. EPA has collected extensive information on the health effects of exposure to benzene. When gasoline vapors collect in a closed environment such as a non-ventilated shed or garage, the potential for an explosion increases. Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon that is produced by the burning of natural products. It is a component of products derived from coal and petroleum and is found in gasoline and other fuels. Benzene is used in the manufacture of plastics, detergents, pesticides, and other chemicals. Research has shown benzene to be a carcinogen (cancer-causing). With exposures from less than five years to more than 30 years, individuals have developed, and died from, leukemia. Long-term exposure may affect bone marrow and blood production. Short-term exposure to high levels of benzene can cause drowsiness, dizziness, unconsciousness, and death.

Duration : 0:0:30

Technorati Tags: agents, air, aromatics, benzene, benzenes, cabinet, cans, carcinogen, carcinogens, care, careful, chemical, chemicals, child, children, common, containers, defects, effect, effects, environment, environmental, exposed, family, fumes, gas, gasoline, HAP, harm, harmful, health, home, house, household, hydrocarbons, illnesses, inhale, lungs, odors, ozone, poision, poisoned, poisoning, poisons, pollutants, pollute, pollution, psa, reagents, respiratory, safe, safety, sensitive, smog, storage, store, toxic, toxicity, vapor, vapors, video, VOC, VOCs, waste

Air pollution is one of the well known types of pollution. Doctors and researchers point it out as the main cause of respiratory illnesses. Such pollution is derived from factories, appliances, engines, and cars, or anything that secretes harmful gases such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particles less than 10 microns in size, benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic hydrocarbons. And among auto parts, the exhaust system excretes these pathogens.

In a research, it was found out that nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide can cause cancer.

Ninety-five percent of pollution related sulfur oxide emissions are in the form of sulfur dioxide (SO2), a heavy, colorless gas with an odor like a struck match. This gas combines easily with water vapor, forming aerosols of sulfurous acid (H2SO3), a colorless, mildly corrosive liquid. This liquid may then combine with oxygen in the air, forming the even more irritating and corrosive sulfuric acid (H2SO4).

Exposure to high concentrations for a short period of time can constrict the bronchi and increase mucous flow, making breathing difficult. Children, the elderly, and those with chronic lung disease and asthma are especially susceptible to these effects. Sulfur dioxide can also:

• Immediately irritate the lung and throat at concentrations greater than 6 parts per million (ppm) in many people.

• Impair the respiratory system’s defenses against foreign particles and bacteria, when exposed to concentrations less than 6 ppm for longer time periods.

• Apparently enhance the harmful effects of ozone. (Combinations of the two gases at concentrations occasionally found in the ambient air appear to increase airway resistance to breathing.)

Bad headaches and nausea are caused by benzene.

Most formaldehyde exposures occur by inhalation or by skin or eye contact. Formaldehyde is absorbed well by and destroys the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and skin.

Lastly, according to the same research, polycyclic hydrocarbons can cause cancer.

The automotive industry is one major contributor to air pollution. To combat air pollution it is important for car owners to keep their vehicles in shape, as badly maintained vehicles are more likely to contribute to air pollution. Auto parts, especially the exhaust system must be regularly checked and worn or damaged parts immediately replaced with quality parts like the Borla exhaust system.

Hanna Racey
http://www.articlesbase.com/automotive-articles/your-health-and-your-car-96449.html

Secondhand smoking, breathing in of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is also called passive smoking. It is when a person breathes in smoke given off into the environment by other people.

Secondhand smoke or ETS is a combination of side stream smoke coming straight from the burning tobacco and the mainstream smoke that is exhaled by the smoker. It comprises of over 4000 chemical constituents, a large proportion of which are the inducers of respiratory illnesses and around 40 are known or suspected carcinogens.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified ETS as a class A (known human) carcinogen along with other known carcinogens such as arsenic, asbestos and benzene etc.

ETS is unfiltered, thus the levels of carcinogens in it are much more than in smoke inhaled directly by an active smoker. Smoking of a cigarette produces smoke from two major places, mainly from the tip of cigarette and from the rest of the cigarette as the hot vapors liberated through the cigarette and its filter.

About 70% to 80% of ETS is from the burning tip of cigarette and comprises of the highest levels of nicotine, carbon monoxide, tar and various other carcinogens. Therefore, a constant exposure to an ETS is apparently even more injurious than directly smoking a cigarette for an equivalent period.

Effects of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke

Immediate effects:

Immediate effects of secondhand smoking comprise of eye irritation, cough, sore throat, headache, nausea and dizziness.

Long-term effects:

Lung cancer: The major cause of lung cancer among non-smokers is secondhand smoke. One of the studies revealed that hospitality workers who were exposed to secondhand smoke became three times more prone to lung cancer.

Cardiovascular problems: ETS can induce short-term and long-term harm to the heart by decreasing its functional capacity and lowering the capacity of blood to carry oxygen. Some of the chemicals in secondhand smoke can block or harden the arteries, causing problems like atherosclerosis, hypertension and later heart attack. In one of the studies, it was found that secondhand smoking enhances the risk of a heart attack by at least two times.

Stroke: Non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke run at least 80% more risk of stroke than do the non-exposed people.

Asthma: One of the studies revealed that the non-smokers exposed to ETS at work showed at least twice the risk of asthma than the non-exposed people did. Those who were exposed to ETS at home as well, showed as much as five times greater risk for asthma than the non-exposed people did. In individuals who already suffer from asthma, exposure to ETS can
significantly decline their lung function.

Breast Cancer: Some of the recent studies have revealed ETS to increase the risk of breast cancer among women.

Effects on the fetus:

Smoking by a pregnant woman can have various serious consequences on the developing fetus.

- Babies born to women who smoked during their pregnancy have a low birth weight and are often born prematurely.

- Their organs, chiefly the lungs, are smaller than of other babies and these babies are more susceptible to cot death.

- They are more prone to illness all their life and are more likely to become addicted to the tobacco later in their life.

Effect on Children

- Kids that are exposed to secondhand smoke from either parent during the first year of their lives are far more likely to be afflicted with asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, bronchiolitis and other respiratory problems than kids who were not exposed.

- Secondhand smoking may also predispose children to the impairment of the blood circulatory system, behavioral problems and olfactory (nasal) problems.

- It also increases their susceptibility to develop cancer during their adulthood.

John Pawlett
http://www.articlesbase.com/non-fiction-articles/how-second-hand-smoke-threatens-your-health-91101.html