Smoking in cars with children

[mumof2222222222222222boys]

I have just seen that there is a proposal that it should be banned (as it is in some countries) given the concentration of toxins in a limited space.

What do you think?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8079357.stm

If people have to smoke I'd introduce licensed adult-only venues. With double doors to stop the smoke escaping. I'd restrict the sale of cigs, cigars etc to these places & make it illegal to smoke ANYWHERE else.
Especially around kids.

I never said it was okay to smoke around children.

LadyGlencoraPalliser,

try googleing, oxygen 50% lower than 50 years ago and read the evidence.

Then google FDA ban asparatame for children.

Unlike the uk, still selling babiy bottles with cancer causing properties the FDA banned asparatame products for children in 2007 over links with cancer.

Maybe before you make stupid comments you should do the leg work.

I give up. I have failed to find any evidence to suggest that this insane claim of yours could be true. If you truly believe that 'the level of oxygen in our atmosphere is nearly 50 % lower now than fifty years ago' then YOU provide some evidence from a REPUTABLE source to back up your claim.
Because frankly, I don't believe you can do it.

Aspartame and cancer.
Well, I googled FDA ban aspartame for children as you sugguested and all I found was I lot of hysterical scaremonger by a bunch of internet doom merchants. I also found this link from the highly respectable US National Cancer Institute which states there is NO correlation between aspartame and lymphomas, leukemias and brain cancers.

There's always one nut in the bowl isn't there.

You just keep giving your little one's fruit shoots and flavoured water, some of us take our childrens health seriously.

As for the very hard science part that you can't quite grasp,( as you seem unable to use a search engine) let me dumb it down for you, oxygen is produced by vegitation and algee, with the deforestation of the planets forrests and the loss of algee and other vegetation where do you think this extra 50% of 'your' oxygen comes from? Maybe all the other trees and algee got together and decided to work overtime? Hmmm, don't think so.

I suppose you also do not believe that the climate of the planet is changing and the ice sheets melting?

i think its pefectly fine

seriously has anyone said that they think it's fine or are you just orgasming on your own vitriolic soapbox?

climate is changing - but its not becuase of the ozone layer - its cyclical

let me dumb it down for you

goog oooo ga ga googoo

I think you MAY be talking about the depletion of the ozone layer here. Now ozone - composed of three molecules of oxygen - is found in the upper layer of the atmosphere and is quite different from the oxygen in the air which with breathe, which is composed of two molecules of oxygen. If there was 50% less oxygen in the air than there was 50 years ago, then we wouldn't be able to breathe very well and we would have noticed this by now. But, as it happens the amount of oxygen in the air (about 20%) has been stable for hundreds of years.
The ozone layer, on the other hand, as we know is depleting and while that undoubtedly has had and will have profound effects on our climate it does not affect, as you seem to believe, the amount of oxygen available for us to breathe.
NOW IS THAT FINALLY CLEAR?
As regards your comments about my ability to use a search engine, any fool can do that. Understanding and evaluating what you are reading is the hard part.

goo goo so there

Yes Custardo, it is cyclical, the position in the milky way, the tilt in planatary axis, the magnetic forces of planetary alignment etc, etc, etc

But also the level of oxygen in the atmosphere was much higher in previous times, the higher the oxygen the cooler the planet, hence previous ice ages, so it would follow then that the lower level of oxygen the warmer the planet, hence climate change.

goo goo ga ga atlantis - what lady palliser ( and i agree with her) is saying is

prove it

a link regarding the cancer research stuff was put forward -

you can't just announce that thee is 50% less oxygen

show some research to illustrate your point

i actually think that its the fault of the pink elephants in morocco

if you don't believe its the fault of the pink elephants in morocco - you are a moron - i said so - so its true - and if you don't believe me, then search it yerself. becuase i don't have to provide proof to back up my ridic claims.

I'm not talking about the depletion of the ozone layer, two different things, the ozone controls how much uv is getting to our planet from the outside, not how much oxygen is in our breathable atmosphere and copy and pasting from wikipedia isn't going to change the science.

The depleation of the ozone layer accounts for some levels of global warming but not for the deforestation and subsequent death of the algae and ocean life.

As precipitation works through our system, if our oxygen levels were not decreasing the ocean would not be having a problem would it?

I'm sorry Custardo, but I fear you are wrong about the pink elephants. I am almost certain that they are green.

Well here's the first study I could come across, most of my reasearch papers are in hard copy;

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507094218.htm

I give up Atlantis. You are now clearly raving.
And I certainly didn't copy and paste from Wikipedia.

i dont think so. i think you will find they are pink shall i dumb it down for you? think red and white mixed together ( bit thick aintcha?)

the guavanian ambassador to peruvania has actually took photographs - if you google is you will see they are in the national museaum od indiniazakhan

Yes, of course you give up who can argue with the science when it's presented to you. Take your alter ego custard and do some more research.

Atlantis. I asked you for evidence to back up your claim that the amount of breathable oxygen in the air has decreased by 50% in the past 50 years.
The paper that you just posted a link to, fascinating as it is, does nothing to address your highly dubious claim. Can you please stick to the point here and stop wittering on.

I know your more Prada that physics but dear do try to keep up.

If the oxygen level was stable or increased the earth would be COOLER.

If the oxygen level is decreased it's WARMER.

I think you will find Custardo that red and white mixed with a sprinkling of magic poppletree dust is acksherly green.
And there are sound recordings of green elephants making there way through the jumbly tree forests of outer Popplegrania to be found in the basement of the Nastrainian museum of unpopular scientific instrumentation. You need to knock three times and say the Lord High Wangdoozle of Whiz sent you.

OH dear Atlantis you are still not getting it. You see scientists don't need to guess how much oxygen is in the air by taking temperatures. They can actually, you know, measure it? And they do. And it hasn't dropped by 50% in the past 50 years.
So, as I said at the very beginning. Show me the proof.

Just passing by this fascinating scientific debate and was wondering of i could get some clarification as to the meaning of this statement:

"As precipitation works through our system, if our oxygen levels were not decreasing the ocean would not be having a problem would it?"

LTOS - I doubt it. But maybe you could help Custardo and me with our pink elephant/green elephant debate.

Atlantis,

I think you really are dumbing it down, but your arguement is both correct and logical.

With the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere it is true that the surface of Earth will become hotter, thus giving way to the problem we are currently in of climate change and melting ice sheets and glaciers and with that the release of even more greenhouse gases that were locked up inside the ice into the atmosphere forcing the oxygen levels to decline further and thus ultimately causing the Earth to heat even further.

The trouble with trying to explain climate change to people who do not understand the science behind it is something you will run into again and again, I take it your inside the problem?