Don't drink and drive: Smoke marijuana and drive
I got this from another list... Maybe that's why Clinton was better than Bush II... Alberto Monteiro http://peety-passion.com/relax/2007/11/27/stoned-drivers-are-safe-drivers/ Stoned drivers are safe drivers November 27th, 2007 | $B*(B marijuana Two decades of research show that marijuana use may actually reduce driver accidents. The effects of marijuana use on driving performance have been extensively researched over the last 20 years. All major studies show that marijuana consumption has little or no effect on driving ability, and may actually reduce accidents. Here's a summary of the biggest studies into pot use and driving. A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the only significant affect of cannabis use was slower driving - arguably a positive effect of driving high. A comprehensive 1992 NHTSA study revealed that pot is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. The study concluded that the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers. This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998. A 1993 NHTSA study dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that THC caused no impairment except for a slight deficiency in the driver's ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road. This means that the THC-dosed drivers had a little trouble staying smack in the center of their lanes, but showed no other problems. The study noted that the effects of even high doses of THC were far less than that of alcohol or many prescription drugs. The study concluded that THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small. A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. The report concluded, there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents. In Canada, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident. A major study done by the UK Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 found that drivers under the influence of cannabis were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. The study examined the effects of marijuana use on drivers through four weeks of tests on driving simulators. The study was commissioned specifically to show that marijuana was impairing, and the british government was embarrassed with the study's conclusion that marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis. According to the Cannabis and Driving report, a comprehensive literature review published in 2000 by the UK Department of Transportation, the majority of evidence suggests that cannabis use may result in a lower risk of [accident] culpability. The Canadian Senate issued a major report into all aspects of marijuana in 2002. Their chapter on Driving under the influence of cannabis concludes that Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving. The most recent study into drugs and driving was published in the July 2004 Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention. Researchers at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research analyzed blood tests from those in traffic accidents, and found that even people with blood alcohol between 0.5% and 0.8% (below the legal limit) had a five-fold increase in the risk of serious accident. Drivers above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision. Drugs like Valium and Rohypnol produced results similar to alcohol, while cocaine and opiates showed only a small but not statistically significant increase in accident risk. As for the marijuana-only users? They showed absolutely no increased risk of accidents at all. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Don't drink and drive: Smoke marijuana and drive
At 04:21 AM Wednesday 11/28/2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: I got this from another list... Maybe that's why Clinton was better than Bush II... Alberto Monteiro http://peety-passion.com/relax/2007/11/27/stoned-drivers-are-safe-drivers/ Stoned drivers are safe drivers November 27th, 2007 | $B*(B A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. So presumably the decrease in accident rate due to cannabis alone is not enough to offset the increase due to alcohol alone, and leaving unstated whether accident rate (marijuana + EtOH) = accident rate (EtOH alone) or accident rate (marijuana + EtOH) accident rate (EtOH alone). The report concluded, there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents. But does it increase the risk when used in conjunction with other drugs? 'Cuz in my admittedly limited observation of such things there appear to be a number of people who use both at the same time or nearly so (IOW they may finish the beer and then light up or something like that). Another question is based on the observation that people who drink alcohol do not always refrain from doing so when they are taking Rx or OTC medications and that sometimes alcohol and the other medication react synergistically to frex make the person significantly more drowsy than s/he would be on either alcohol alone or the medication alone. Does marijuana have a similar effect when mixed with other things the person may already be taking? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Don't drink and drive: Smoke marijuana and drive
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dave Land wrote: This brings to mind the long-standing question, what is the big deal about marijuana, anyway? America, anyway, has had this stupid Reefer Madness mentality for far too long, especially given that a far, far more dangerous drug is available in numerous forms at the supermarket or neighborhood liquor store. It has to do with someone's vast forests earlier in the century and wanting to keep paper production restricted to wood pulp. IIRC. Can't remember who, though, to back it up with lots of reference or anything. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Don't drink and drive: Smoke marijuana and drive
On Nov 28, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 04:21 AM Wednesday 11/28/2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Maybe that's why Clinton was better than Bush II... A better driver? I don't have any data on that. My own personal feelings on the matter of notwithstanding, I think the jury is still out for some Americans whether Clinton I was a better president than Bush II. Of course, some Americans still think there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. Evidently, some Americans couldn't find their own asses with both hands and a map. A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. So presumably the decrease in accident rate due to cannabis alone is not enough to offset the increase due to alcohol alone, and leaving unstated whether accident rate (marijuana + EtOH) = accident rate (EtOH alone) or accident rate (marijuana + EtOH) accident rate (EtOH alone). Or, for the sake of completeness: accident rate (THC + EtOH) accident rate (EtOH alone)? It was not clear to me whether the beneficial effects of THC were able to compensate for some of the deleterious effects of EtOH, but that would be a nice finding. The report concluded, there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents. But does it increase the risk when used in conjunction with other drugs? 'Cuz in my admittedly limited observation of such things there appear to be a number of people who use both at the same time or nearly so (IOW they may finish the beer and then light up or something like that). Another question is based on the observation that people who drink alcohol do not always refrain from doing so when they are taking Rx or OTC medications and that sometimes alcohol and the other medication react synergistically to frex make the person significantly more drowsy than s/he would be on either alcohol alone or the medication alone. Does marijuana have a similar effect when mixed with other things the person may already be taking? This brings to mind the long-standing question, what is the big deal about marijuana, anyway? America, anyway, has had this stupid Reefer Madness mentality for far too long, especially given that a far, far more dangerous drug is available in numerous forms at the supermarket or neighborhood liquor store. Not to say that I would replace my consumption of drink responsibly quantities of that dangerous drug with marijuana, because I don't want to fsck up my lungs. My mother and brother were both killed by lung cancer, so I suspect I should keep mine clean for as long as I can. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Smoke marijuana and drive
I got this from another list... Maybe that's why Clinton was better than Bush II... Alberto Monteiro http://peety-passion.com/relax/2007/11/27/stoned-drivers-are-safe-drivers/ speaking for myself, i would not risk driving stone-ed, especially with the high quality hydroponic, genetically enhanced herb on the market these days. jon - Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Don't drink and drive: Smoke marijuana and drive
Dave Land wrote: Not to say that I would replace my consumption of drink responsibly quantities of that dangerous drug with marijuana, because I don't want to fsck up my lungs. My mother and brother were both killed by lung cancer, so I suspect I should keep mine clean for as long as I can. Marijuana doesn't fsck the lungs, it fscks neurons - and you have only two lungs, so why bother in losing a few million neurons when you have billions? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Don't drink and drive: Smoke marijuana and drive
On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dave Land wrote: Not to say that I would replace my consumption of drink responsibly quantities of that dangerous drug with marijuana, because I don't want to fsck up my lungs. My mother and brother were both killed by lung cancer, so I suspect I should keep mine clean for as long as I can. Marijuana doesn't fsck the lungs, it fscks neurons - and you have only two lungs, so why bother in losing a few million neurons when you have billions? I know that the brilliance of my posts to the list suggest that I have bags and bags of neurons to spare, but the fact is that I already have a sizable hole in my brain where a nice, friendly mixed oligoastrocytoma was removed in 2003. Thus, my lungs _and_ my neurons may be in shorter supply than your average Brineller. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Don't drink and drive: Smoke marijuana and drive
At 12:49 PM Wednesday 11/28/2007, Dave Land wrote: On Nov 28, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 04:21 AM Wednesday 11/28/2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. IOW accident rate (THC) (slightly) accident rate (nothing), but accident rate (THC + EtOH) accident rate (nothing). *** So presumably the decrease in accident rate due to cannabis alone is not enough to offset the increase due to alcohol alone ***, and leaving unstated whether accident rate (marijuana + EtOH) = accident rate (EtOH alone) or accident rate (marijuana + EtOH) accident rate (EtOH alone). Or, for the sake of completeness: accident rate (THC + EtOH) accident rate (EtOH alone)? Covered in the first part of the question. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Don't drink and drive: Smoke marijuana and drive
Alberto Monteiro wrote: http://peety-passion.com/relax/2007/11/27/stoned-drivers-are-safe-drivers/ Stoned drivers are safe drivers Two decades of research show that marijuana use may actually reduce driver accidents. I can't be the only one who thought this was going to be a Bill Hicks routine, can I? Jim Arizona Bay Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Don't drink and drive: Smoke marijuana and drive
On 11/28/2007 4:55:58 PM, Jim Sharkey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: http://peety-passion.com/relax/2007/11/27/stoned-drivers-are-safe- drivers/ Stoned drivers are safe drivers Two decades of research show that marijuana use may actually reduce driver accidents. I can't be the only one who thought this was going to be a Bill Hicks routine, can I? You mean Beelzebozo? xponent Relentless maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] but the basic statistics on second hand smoke have been supported by real testing. snip I think it is a mistake to look for single causes when the potential for synergistic effects should be evident. Yes, tobacco and other air pollutants/contaminants can be contributory, additive or synergystic (that was touched on in some of the air pollution abstracts I posted); a uranium miner who smokes a couple of packs a day likely has a greater statistical chance of developing lung cancer than a non-smoking miner, or a smoker non-miner (I say likely b/c I can't recall the exact reference, but will track it down if requested). Just what is in that underarm deodorant anyway? And how much of it gets into your lymphatic system? nod Yes, a recent study links breast cancer with aluminum-containing deodorants -- the question may be, as in Alzheimer's, does aluminum _cause_ the mutation/tangle, or does the mutated cell/fibrillary tangle bind Al more tightly for some reason? If you can smell it or taste it, or rub it on your body, its likely in your bloodstream seconds later. Organic solvents are particularly nasty for penetrating the skin; many water-soluble chemicals are repelled effectively by intact skin. Mucous membranes are more vulnerable to both, as well as to penetration by microbes, which is why the digestive system has such a high concentration of immune tissue. Our defenses are pretty darn good against the hordes of bacteria and viruses waiting to pounce, and over the millenia we've recruited our own host of protective bugs to aid in the battle, but we haven't had time to develop good strategies against some of the chemicals that never existed in our environment before the industrial revolution. Some can be interpreted as a variant of our own self-generated hormones, and wreak mischief. Certain 'communities' of bacteria, OTOH, as a group can adapt to fairly toxic organic compounds, one breaking a portion from it, and passing the metabolite on to the next in the chain. Debbi who'd better stop before she whirls off in a tangent on the web of life... ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Practice? (was: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure)
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julia wrote: Uh, yeah. How hard can it be to pee on the correct part of the thing, anyway? :) Depends on how far awy you stand. 8^) Doug ROU Target Practice lol Well, apparently in some trials with actual patients, as many as 20+% performed the test incorrectly somehow...I think most were timing or dilution errors. Debbi We Aim To Please...You Aim Too, Please! Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3996062/ Martha S. Jones has asthma, so whenever her husband, Bob, lights up at their Woodbridge home, the agreement is that he steps outside. She used to think that protected her from exposure to the more than 4,000 chemical compounds found in cigarette smoke, 43 of which are known to cause cancer in humans or animals. Then she tried a new do-it-yourself urine test for detecting exposure to secondhand smoke, and her sense of security dissolved. The test rated her at 2 on a scale of 6 -- one notch below that of a regular smoker. Jones said she was shocked to register such a high level of passive smoke exposure, which she thinks came from nicotine residue in her husband's car and time spent with his smoking friends away from their house. Now she is working -- delicately -- to persuade her husband to quit, she said... ...The TobacAlerttest doesn't require expensive and time-consuming lab analysis, and results appear in about 15 minutes, Munzar said. The test strip is sensitive enough to detect only an hour of exposure to tobacco smoke in the previous three days... ...Secondhand smoke is well established by scientists as a cause of disease in nonsmokers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that secondhand smoke causes 3,000 adult nonsmokers to die of lung cancer each year, and some experts say many other deaths result from cardiovascular illnesses triggered or exacerbated by smoke exposure. The CDC says secondhand smoke causes coughing, phlegm, reduced lung function and reddened, itchy, watery eyes for countless people. In children younger than 18 months, secondhand smoke causes 150,000 to 300,000 respiratory tract infections a year, the CDC estimates. Children frequently exposed to tobacco smoke suffer more respiratory problems and ear infections and are more likely to develop asthma, the agency said. About 60 percent of deaths from sudden infant death syndrome are attributable to exposure to parental tobacco smoke before or after birth, CDC said. If you argue in court that secondhand smoke doesn't kill, they will laugh you out of court, said James L. Repace, a Beltsville-based air quality expert who has participated in dozens of battles nationwide over smoking restrictions. Repace said home tests could inspire more suits. Once people find out they are exposed in such graphic terms, they get upset, he said... This kit is much cheaper than the tests performed at medical laboratories, and the manufacterer said TobacAlert compared favorably with lab tests in company studies, and they promised to share details in scientific meetings and journals -- various other home test kits can be of high quality, like pregnancy tests, but certainly this one shouldn't be used in any legal proceeding until it is shown to be equally accurate. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brinl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:03 PM Subject: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure [Snip bad science for commercial purposes] And Martha then vacuums her new carpet, uses household cleansers and breaths the fumes, burns a candle for a good part of the evening, and then drives to a Wal-Mart at the confluence of two interstates. Martha dies of lung cancer 50 years later at the age of 80 and is duly listed as a tobacco related death. xponent Second Hand Smoke Nazis Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:07 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure - Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brinl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:03 PM Subject: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure [Snip bad science for commercial purposes] And Martha then vacuums her new carpet, uses household cleansers and breaths the fumes, burns a candle for a good part of the evening, and then drives to a Wal-Mart at the confluence of two interstates. Martha dies of lung cancer 50 years later at the age of 80 and is duly listed as a tobacco related death. There is a pretty easy experiment test for this; use a control group of people who don't live with smokers and work in a smoke free environment. The test kit that indicates getting sick from the smell in the car is a bit suspect, but the basic statistics on second hand smoke have been supported by real testing. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:30 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:07 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure - Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brinl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:03 PM Subject: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure [Snip bad science for commercial purposes] And Martha then vacuums her new carpet, uses household cleansers and breaths the fumes, burns a candle for a good part of the evening, and then drives to a Wal-Mart at the confluence of two interstates. Martha dies of lung cancer 50 years later at the age of 80 and is duly listed as a tobacco related death. There is a pretty easy experiment test for this; use a control group of people who don't live with smokers and work in a smoke free environment. The test kit that indicates getting sick from the smell in the car is a bit suspect, but the basic statistics on second hand smoke have been supported by real testing. Sure Dan, though I have doubts SHS is as bad a problem as it has been presented, my point is directed at the irony of going after smoke when we expose ourselves daily to chemicals that might be even worse. I think it is a mistake to look for single causes when the potential for synergistic effects should be evident. Just what is in that underarm deodorant anyway? And how much of it gets into your lymphatic system? If you can smell it or taste it, or rub it on your body, its likely in your bloodstream seconds later. xponent Genuine Questions Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
Robert Seeberger wrote: Just what is in that underarm deodorant anyway? Mine? Mostly a petroleum-based gel, as well as coriander oil, lichen and aloe. (I'd have to go upstairs and grab a stick to give the *full* list, but that's a good chunk of it. And nothing extra added for fragrance.) And how much of it gets into your lymphatic system? Dunno. But I'm less concerned about using *my* deodorant than I would be using a lot of the ones on the market. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Snip bad science for commercial purposes] I clearly stated that these kits will have to be tested against medical laboratory standards to be considered reasonable. Frex while home pregnancy kits are reasonably accurate after ~6-8 weeks, they are *not* 99% as claimed on the first missed menses cycle day (2-4 weeks). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=11719477dopt=Abstract It is also abundantly clear that second-hand smoke is detrimental to fetuses, infants, children and adults with respiratory conditions such as asthma. I recently posted multiple good studies concluding that. Tobacco is not benign for the user or household contacts. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Snip bad science for commercial purposes] I clearly stated that these kits will have to be tested against medical laboratory standards to be considered reasonable. Frex while home pregnancy kits are reasonably accurate after ~6-8 weeks, they are *not* 99% as claimed on the first missed menses cycle day (2-4 weeks). Huh. I never had a problem with a false negative. I'm wondering what brands are best, and if I just picked the best brand. On the other hand, with twins, hormone levels might have been higher than they would otherwise have been; and on the first pregnancy, I took it a few days after my period would have started. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: snip Frex while home pregnancy kits are reasonably accurate after ~6-8 weeks, they are *not* 99% as claimed on the first missed menses cycle day (2-4 weeks). Huh. I never had a problem with a false negative. I'm wondering what brands are best, and if I just picked the best brand. On the other hand, with twins, hormone levels might have been higher than they would otherwise have been; and on the first pregnancy, I took it a few days after my period would have started. Some brands are more accurate than others, and your levels were a bit higher, with the tag-team... :) And I'll bet you follow the proper directions besides! Debbi When All Else Fails, Read The Instructions Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
Deborah Harrell wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: snip Frex while home pregnancy kits are reasonably accurate after ~6-8 weeks, they are *not* 99% as claimed on the first missed menses cycle day (2-4 weeks). Huh. I never had a problem with a false negative. I'm wondering what brands are best, and if I just picked the best brand. On the other hand, with twins, hormone levels might have been higher than they would otherwise have been; and on the first pregnancy, I took it a few days after my period would have started. Some brands are more accurate than others, and your levels were a bit higher, with the tag-team... :) And I'll bet you follow the proper directions besides! Debbi When All Else Fails, Read The Instructions Maru :) Uh, yeah. How hard can it be to pee on the correct part of the thing, anyway? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
Julia wrote: Uh, yeah. How hard can it be to pee on the correct part of the thing, anyway? :) Depends on how far awy you stand. 8^) -- Doug ROU Target Practice ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Home test kit for second-hand smoke exposure
In a message dated 1/20/2004 11:20:29 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Julia wrote: Uh, yeah. How hard can it be to pee on the correct part of the thing, anyway? :) Depends on how far awy you stand. 8^) The introduction of the strategically placed Dixie cups to your game of naked Marathon Twister is a very evil thing to do. William Taylor - And this is going to be the last post of the day for me. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
smoke
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20021029-_1m29smoke.html Scripps scientists link chemical in tobacco with onset of diseases By Bruce Lieberman UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER October 29, 2002 A naturally present chemical in tobacco may contribute to the onset of diabetes, cancer, aging and Alzheimer's, two scientists at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla have found. The chemical, called nornicotine, cooks the body's proteins, triggering the same reaction that turns burned sugar brown and causes food to spoil. Nornicotine permanently and irreversibly modifies proteins, which can affect their overall function, said Scripps biological chemist Kim D. Janda. Janda and Scripps researcher Tobin J. Dickerson have published their study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper appeared online yesterday and will be in print later this year. Nornicotine also was found to react with prescription steroids, such as cortisone and prednisone, potentially making them more toxic, Janda and Dickerson found. In their study, titled A previously undescribed chemical link between smoking and metabolic disease, the scientists found that nornicotine attaches itself permanently to steroids and certain amino acids on the surface of proteins. Amino acids are the chemical building blocks of proteins. Proteins, encoded by DNA, form the key structural elements in cells and are responsible for all the cell's activities. Once nornicotine modifies these steroids and proteins, the new molecules interact with other chemicals in the body and create new compounds. Among them are a variety of compounds known as advanced glycation endproducts, which have been implicated in numerous diseases including diabetes, cancer, atherosclerosis and Alzheimer's. These advanced glycation endproducts are not supposed to be (present in your body) naturally, said Dickerson. Your body is not prepared for them. Janda and Dickerson, testing the blood of 20 smokers and nonsmokers, found that the smokers had higher levels of proteins that had been modified by nornicotine than nonsmokers. The smokers also had higher levels of the advanced glycation endproducts. Nornicotine, unlike nicotine, persists in the bloodstream, suggesting that the chemical may contribute to tobacco addiction, Janda and Dickerson said. The chemical nornicotine is present in all tobacco products, including cigarettes and chewing tobacco, and in nicotine gum and patches. It's been thought of as a little bystander, Janda said, adding that he plans to study nornicotine in nicotine gum and patches. Their study was supported by the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology at The Scripps Research Institute. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
