For all of you "second hand smoke" ninnies.

Page 2 of 10  
trader_4 explained on 7/4/2016 :

You're lucky to have so many imaginary friends, I only had one and that was a long time ago.

I'll test your theory tomorrow. I don't know exactly how far away work is, but I do know that if I travel at a rate of a mile a minute I can time myself and derive the distance using D=RT as an equation.
Better yet, to save gas, I will get in my truck in the driveway and won't even start it. My rate will be zero and you say that the time doesn't matter and the distance becomes zero.
When my neighbor gets upset about his cornfield suddenly becoming a parking lot and his house being demolished by a factory landing on it, I will tell him that some idiot on USENET convinced me to do it as an experiment.
I'm putting *my* money on the time being infinite when the rate is zero and my workplace staying right where it is because of D=RT being a formula. It's a good thing too, because we're not zoned for industry up here.
I'm sure my boss will forgive me for not working tomorrow when I explain that the alternative was to have his factory dropped on a farmhouse and a cornfield in a non-industrial zone.
If you are correct, it should make the evening news, so have someone read the newspaper to you - or just look at the photos that are likely to accompany the story. Everybody has a camera these days.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FromTheRafters wrote :

Hello I'm nurse Ratchet and I found Mister Fromtherafters sitting in his truck in the driveway this afternoon and asked him why and he said he was conducting an experiment and when I asked him how much longer he would be there he said forever or until a factory crushes the farmhouse next door. I figured he skipped his meds so I gave him a sedative and put him in his bed and tightened the restraints. What? Know what? New what? Oh. It's like hitting enter to create another line.
Wow! If I do it twice it comes out double spaced.
This is so cool.
The microphone isn't picking up your voice so I will try to relay what you say.
Tell the traitor. I now know where. He gets all those. Village idiot awards. Which he tries. To palm off. On everyone else.
It doesn't make sense to me but maybe people who read this will know what it means.
It is amazing. This peach wreck ignition stuff works flawlessly so there should be no problem communicating with him once the sedative wears off.
--
Disclaimer - This is not intended to be taken seriously, I am
unrestrained.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 4:03:35 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:

It's obvious that you are indeed the village idiot who either never took algebra of failed it. Algebra test:
A = B x C
Solve for B = 2, C =3 Everyone else's answer 6
Solve for B = 0, C = 3 Everyone else's answer 0
Village idiot's answer: You can't do that, it's division by Zero, so there is no answer. FAIL!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader_4 explained :

Your example above is an equation where the relationships don't *seem* to matter. Using algebra it can be made into a formula. No, not the formula your mommy gave you with your apple puree for lunch.
https://www.google.com/#q=formula%20vs.%20equation
A divide both sides by C (this is algebra and C must be non-zero) and flip it left to right for readability giving you B=A/C <-- this is now an equivalent equation for the formula.
Now divide both sides of the first equation by B (more algebra and B must also be non-zero) to get C=A/B <-- this is another equivalent equation for the formula.
Now you have a formula (in three equations) where the relationships matter. The three equivalent equations are:
A B=A/C C=A/B
Even in your seventh grade arithmetic equation there is a rule to follow.
A = B x C <-- B times any "number" is zero. C times any "number" is zero.
For the *formula*, where the relationships matter and B and C must be both "numbers" and "non-zero" or it is invalid. Invalid because the relationship between B and C is that they are "inversely proportional". https://www.google.com/#q=what+does+inversely+proportional+mean
Which means that as one approaches zero, the other approaches infinity (which is not a number). When 'one or the other' *is* zero, the 'other or one' *is* infinity. In this case you can't divide by one or multiply by the other and get a sensible answer - the "formula" doesn't work.
Get whomever read you my post about D=RT to do it again, only slower so that you can keep up. in D=RT you are saying that if R is zero then D is zero. When I want to determine how far away work is, I can travel just a tad above zero miles a minute and get there in just a tad less than an infinite amount of time in minutes and multiply those two "numbers" together to get the distance from work in miles. It is better and takes less time if I use a higher rate of speed, but travelling infinitely fast creates the same problem because the time will be zero.
If I try to do it your way when the rate actually *is* zero, I get zero for an answer which is obviously a wrong answer since it is absurd to believe that my neighbor's farmhouse will be crushed by a factory. I won't even mention the poor cornfield. The actual distance to work is a "constant" whatever value it actually has.
Get it yet?
Doing what you are doing makes the *formula* invalid because the "algebra" used to create it requires that B or C not be zero.
This is fine where the Ohm's Law *formula* is used for "voltage drop" because "voltage drop" *also* requires there be a non-zero current flowing through a non-zero resistance. Which brings us right back to the original "Al Gebra" post you started arguing with me about.
Where he said:
"Voltage drop is represented by the *formula* [my emphasis] E=I*R Seems to me if the current flow is zero, then the voltage would be zero as well."
And I said:
"That's a good theory, but IMO it is wrong."
Clearly stated as an opinion, but you just felt that you had to argue about it so you could give away another of your well earned village idiot awards to an undeserving passer-by.
--
(format t "Are you thumb kind of mathochist")

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 2:08:55 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:

It's obvious to everyone that took algebra that it doesn't need to be made into a formula, it IS a formula:
A = B x C
0 = 0 x 3
QED.
Tell everyone here that when asked on the most basic algebra test to solve for A when B=0, C =3 the answer isn't 0. That is everyone else's answer, it's the correct answer. And no, we didn't divide by zero either to get the answer.
You really are the village idiot.
Rest of your drival is just the same old crap, trying to force division by zero, when no division by zero is required.

There is no such requirement for Ohm's law. With a current of zero, and finite resistance, Ohm's law gives zero for the voltage. Show us a credible reference that says that Ohm's law says the current can't be zero. You can't because it doesn't. Did you graph it yet? It goes right through the origin. So sad how far the country has sunk in math skills. You probably think we won our independence from France in 1940 too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/2016 2:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:

I posted 4 links. Which one are you talking about? Care to discuss what the article actually contained, or do you just enjoy being vague?
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:49:10 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

I already went through it with you. Once again, you're the village idiot. Time to change your screen name again, to better troll, perhaps?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/2016 5:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:

I like this article. Read the full article describing all the tech stuff and results. IOW's, you'll ignore it because it proves you wrong.
"Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential third hand smoke hazards.
This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Substan- tial levels of TSNAs were measured on surfaces inside a smoker’s vehicle. Laboratory experiments using cellulose as a model indoor material yielded a>10-fold increase of surface-bound TSNAs when sorbed secondhand smoke was exposed to 60 ppbv HONO for 3 hours. In both cases we identified 1-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-4-butanal, a TSNA absent in freshly emitted tobaccosmoke, as the major product. The potent carcinogens 4-(methy-lnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone and N-nitroso nornicotine were also detected. Time-course measurements revealed fast TSNA formation, with up to 0.4% conversion of nicotine. Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on indoor surfaces—including clothing and human skin—this recently identified process represents an unappreciated health hazard through dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has been recently dubbed “thirdhand smoke.” Our work highlights the importance of reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly those involving amines and NO x/HONO cycling, with potential health impacts."
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:45:10 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

already know

Note what they did. They used a closed car, the worst environment possible. And they concluded that smoking there leaves traces. I could have saved them the money, we all know that. What did they conclude "with potential health impacts". Almost anything today has potential health impacts, even drinking the water in most municipal water systems.
Since they used a car, how about the car itself?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-car-smell-is-toxic-study-says-which-cars-ar e-worst/
"New car smell is toxic, study says: Which cars are worst?"
"Research shows that vehicle interiors contain a unique cocktail of hundred s of toxic chemicals that off-gas in small, confined spaces," Jeff Gearhart , research director at the Ecology Center, said in a written statement. "Si nce these chemicals are not regulated, consumers have no way of knowing the dangers they face. "
OMG, we're all gonna die! The story is complete with skull and crossbones. This is exactly what Gfre was talking about, that there are all kinds of traces of chemicals around us every day. Yet the smell of a cigarette from 15 ft away is gonna kill us? Sorry, I'm not buying it and as outlined abov e the "study" you cited doesn't say it either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/4/2016 11:21 AM, trader_4 wrote:

WRONG! They showed this result:
"This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)."
AND this:
"Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on indoor surfaces—including clothing and human skin—this recently dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has been recently dubbed “thirdhand smoke."
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:11:18 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

t already know

Wrong? What's wrong? I told you flat out I didn't need to even do a study to know that you'd get tobacco byproducts in a closed car. Good grief.

"These findings raise concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue "
Obviously you don't get around much. I gave you a cite where they list the top 10 cancer causing substances found in our homes. Shampoo, hot dogs , etc are on the list. I can find you endless studies that "raise concerns" . Based on that we should ban hot dogs, shampoo, coffee, and half the things in our homes. BTW, how the hell does that tobacco residue get to you when it's in a private restaurant or bar if you don't go in the place? Answer, it doesn't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/5/2016 9:20 AM, trader_4 wrote:

It said: "Formation of carcinogens indoors".
IOW, the study isn't simply about byproducts in a closed car. The results apply to "indoors", not just in a closed car.

The carcinogens deposited on any surface during that private room restaurant smoking event leach out and combine with VOC's in the room and air to create MORE dangerous toxins.
For an engineer, you really have a difficult time putting details together to form a logical thought.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 12:44:23 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

n't already know

Just like the studies that showed saccharin was going to kill us all, so it was banned. But oooops, turned out they had bad studies, took results from rats, extrapolated it to humans and it was all junk science. You really need to stay away from science, you're clueless. All they showed was that some potentially harmful residue winds up on the interior of a closed car where smoking has been going on. Didn't need a study to tell you that. They haven't shown that any of it is in any way harmful to someone who comes along later and sits in the car. I showed you similar lists, of "cancer causing products" that are in our house. Hot dogs, Ajaax, shampoo, etc. OMG, think of the lives lost!

For a village idiot you obviously are totally lacking in science. Or even common sense. You look at a video of some out of control jerks clearly resisting arrest, fighting with police and then come in here and say that they were arrested for jay walking. That's what lib loons do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/2016 1:07 PM, Muggles wrote:

Don't waste a lot of time. It appears clear that Trader will only accept a study done by Byzantine monks between the years 500BC and 400BC, with the report submitted in Egyptian, on papyrus scrolls. And stored in the Dead Sea Caves.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/2016 12:51 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

hahaha! Ok .. that was just funny.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/2016 2:09 PM, Muggles wrote:

BTW, Trader 4 just disappeared from my screen. Bummer on him.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:

andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid86821237049_ 1361&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&r

000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

Moron, she didn't post a "study". She posted a link to a short abstract about a study, that only says the study was done, a little about the methodology and NOTHING about the conclusions.
This would be like someone saying Mormons are a bunch of child molesters and when challenged, some idiot posts a link to an abstract that say a study was done, they looked at 5000 Mormons over 5 years. Nothing at all about what they found.
No go fuck yourself and take Muggles with you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 13:51:53 -0400, Stormin Mormon

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/2016 6:47 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I did reach that conclusion.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:37:44 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Many of us here mostly reached that conclusion about you a long time ago. But I was still courteous until now when you opened an attack out of the blue on me for no reason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.