Posts by Kate Diaz

The True Price Tag of Smoking and Healthcare:

As of 2002, smoking imposes an annual cost of $157.4 billion on Americans. On an individual level, that breaks down to roughly $3,391 per person. Every single pack contributes to rising medical expenses, drives down workplace productivity, and fuels inflation. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the total economic impact per pack sits at approximately $7.18.

Looking at the same CDC data, the losses tied to alcoholism—including mortality, lost productivity, and treatment costs resulting from car accidents—total about $2.5 billion. To put that in perspective, that is barely 2% of the economic damage caused by smoking.

It seems those comparisons smokers cling to as a lifeline to justify their habit don't quite hold much water, do they?

At the end of the day, driving under the influence is strictly illegal, and you face prison time if you cause a fatality. Smoking, however, remains a socially accepted behavior, often even encouraged by one's surroundings, despite causing significantly more widespread harm. If you compare the statistics regarding alcohol-related accidents to the victims of secondhand smoke, the disparity is clear. The main difference is that "killing" via secondhand smoke isn't a criminal offense, whereas it certainly is for a drunk driver.

Dada said:When you walk into an old-school pub, there’s just something missing without a bit of smoke in the air; it adds a certain character to the atmosphere. Now, I realize that’s far less significant than the actual health risks involved—this is merely an observation rather than a critique.

It’s similar to how some folks claim Coca-Cola hasn't been the same since they stopped using cocaine. They argue that the experience just isn't quite what it used to be, and you can't enjoy it like people did in the past. 😁 😁

People also say visiting Bolivia isn't quite the same experience now that they've banned the public consumption of coca in public spaces and on trains. They claim that specific 'vibe' is gone.

And so on...

bluewolf4 said:It really irritates me when someone pops up claiming "IT'S PROVEN," haha.
Some tiny college surveyed about 40 people, and now suddenly everything is "proven" based on that. Hehehe.
The majority of Europeans smoke, whereas in America, it’s done by a minority; so, are you trying to suggest Americans are more educated than we are?

And that comment above you is just the definition of "educated"...
If you were actually a bit more educated, you would realize that you'll likely infect me with one of your coughs while I'm smoking next to you long before I infect you with my cigarette.

It is PROVEN that smoking is a disease—specifically, an addiction. And as such, it ought to be treated. As an addictive disorder, it sits on the same level as alcoholism or drug abuse. The only issue is that in less developed countries, smoking is socially acceptable; it is, essentially, a socially preferred pattern of behavior. This stands in contrast to alcoholism or, heaven forbid, drug use (which everyone recoils from as if it were a plague, even while they themselves smoke, oblivious to the fact that they are behaving the same way).

It is also PROVEN that among all addictive diseases and all causes of human activity, smoking causes the most damage—the greatest loss of life, productivity, and medical resources. Why should I, as a taxpayer, have to foot the bill for treating cancer or various lung ailments caused by smoking?

Regardless, this wasn't "proven" to you by some tiny little university using a 40-question survey....

Otto said:Smoking isn't just about individual liberty versus government overreach; it's really a matter of how much respect an individual shows to the people around them through their social conduct.

👍 👍 👍 👍 👍

Well put.

Does anyone happen to know what the ticket prices will look like and where I can actually pick them up (either here in the States or over in Canada)?

Also, does anyone have any insight into what happened to that agency, d. N. d., based out of Chicago? I used to go to so many shows through them, but they seemingly vanished overnight. To be honest, I’ve never been much of a fan of the folks over at Art Travel.

boldsailor32 said:You forgot to mention that you need to bond the conductive suit to the protective ground in a standard US outlet using a wire; otherwise, the setup won't actually work. 🙂

You have a point there. Otherwise, you just end up becoming a collector of charge and all those other "twisty currents" (if you can even find the right way to describe them in English). 🙂

Just be careful about which socket you're plugging into. You wouldn't want to end up looking like a knight in shining, glowing armor. 😁 😁 😁

Casey Palmer5 said:I honestly wish I could voice my opinion on why people feel this way—not that I’d ever consider buying a condo right next to a transformer station myself, and those cell towers don't exactly sit well with me either. I can't help but think back to that situation in San Diego where five students from the exact same classroom were all diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma about three years ago. If I remember correctly, that classroom hasn't even been used since.

There is a lot of noise lately from people protesting the installation of cell towers in their neighborhoods. It’s a bit ironic, really—these same individuals use their smartphones constantly for calls and data, yet they are adamant that the tower shouldn't be placed near their property. They would much rather have the infrastructure situated under someone else's window. What most people don't realize is that, from a technical standpoint, being directly beneath a cell tower is actually one of the safest spots you can be. To maximize coverage over a wide area, these antennas are designed with a specific radiation pattern that is primarily horizontal. Because the signal is directed outward toward the horizon rather than straight down, the electromagnetic exposure directly underneath the tower is virtually negligible.

The impact of electromagnetic radiation on the human body remains a significantly under-researched area. Furthermore, many of these various magnetic devices marketed for "healing" purposes carry highly questionable efficacy. They can cause blood pressure to drop, pose unknown risks to pregnant women, and trigger side effects like headaches or nausea. Ultimately, the vast majority of these methods have failed to demonstrate any clinical effectiveness.

To be perfectly honest, I would never dream of wearing those kinds of "mumbo jumbo" magnets or magnetic covers myself. The fields generated by those devices are almost certainly stronger than the ones you'd encounter near a local power substation, and frankly, who knows what kind of impact they might have on the ferromagnetic compounds within our own bodies?

Oleander said:I'm with you on that.
Whether we are wide awake or fast asleep, substations and high-voltage power lines carry significant risks.

Making a claim like that without providing any actual data or evidence is a massive stretch. Substations aren't "extremely harmful," but they aren't completely harmless either. There seems to be a prevailing mindset in our community that anything labeled as "radiation" or "EM waves" is inherently, catastrophically dangerous. To me, that just reflects a general lack of scientific literacy. It’s much easier to scream about how everything—be it GMOs, modern technology, or nuclear power plants—is toxic simply because it's something new and unfamiliar.

Now, that doesn't mean they don't have an impact. The problem is that determining the exact level of harm is incredibly difficult. Today, the baseline number of people suffering from cancer and other illnesses is already quite high. Because of this, it is nearly impossible to isolate a specific increase—say, 1 in 1,000 cases—and pin it directly on a local substation or a similar source. Even science struggles with much larger events; take the Chernobyl disaster, for example. It is notoriously hard to calculate the exact spike in illness caused by a nuclear catastrophe compared to the natural background rate of disease. Some estimates suggest an increase of roughly 0.015%, which is statistically negligible. This is why pinpointing the precise influence of substations and other EM emitters on health outcomes is such a monumental challenge.

We also need to recognize that, in the short term, EM waves at 50Hz frequencies are safe. However, their long-term effects haven't been fully established yet. The energy levels of these specific waves are far too low to trigger chemical, molecular, thermal, or genetic changes. That is a completely different story when you look at X-rays or radioactivity, where the energy levels are more than sufficient to cause such damage. Comparing the EM waves from a substation to X-rays or radioactive material is simply scientifically unsound.

Zachary Rodriguez32 said:I’m facing a bit of a dilemma. My parents have been searching for a new place to buy for quite some time now, and we finally stumbled upon an apartment that seemed like a perfect fit. However, we just realized there is a massive electrical substation located only about 20 meters away from the property. I heard it might be around 30 kilovolts. I’ve also read concerns that people living in close proximity to substations and high-voltage power lines face an increased risk of developing cancer or leukemia. To be safe, we hired a specialist to come out and measure the electromagnetic field strength inside the apartment. During the reading, I noticed the number was hovering around 250—though I’m not entirely sure if that was measured in Tesla or milliTesla. The technician mentioned that according to European Union guidelines, this level shouldn't exceed 20. This would mean the field in this apartment is ten times stronger than what is recommended. He did note, however, that the field doesn't impact a person while they are awake, but rather affects them while they sleep. He is... Full PointHe suggested using a mattress cover equipped with magnetic strips to deflect electromagnetic fields, arguing that the primary issue is the exposure we face while sleeping rather than while awake. Essentially, he believes if we neutralize the field during rest, the problem is solved. However, I’m not entirely convinced and would like to get your take on this before jumping to conclusions. Specifically, do electromagnetic fields impact us significantly while we are awake, and can a magnetic field actually serve as an effective shield against EM radiation? If anyone else has insights or experiences regarding this, you're welcome to weigh in! 😁

Are there any other effective ways to reduce EM radiation exposure?

I spent some time browsing through the Full Point website recently. My initial impression was actually quite positive—I thought to myself, "Finally, someone who actually knows what they’re talking about." However, the further I delved into their content, the more unsettled I became. I honestly cannot recommend their measurements; to me, the whole operation feels incredibly disingenuous and purely profit-driven. While that first instrument (the HI-something) might seem legitimate based on its technical specifications alone, everything changed once I saw their bio-potential readings and that L-antenna setup. It was frankly eye-opening in the worst way. In my view, this is nothing more than window dressing. It's a tactic used to mislead the average person who lacks a deep understanding of technical implementation and measurement methodologies. They are essentially capitalizing on people's lack of specialized knowledge and their inherent naivety just to turn a quick, shameless profit.

Here is my recommendation: don’t take my word for it. If you are serious about getting accurate measurements, follow the advice given by boldsailor32 and hire a professional firm that specializes in industrial-grade testing. It won't be cheap, but if you're willing to invest in accuracy, it's the only way to go. Alternatively, you could reach out to the experts at the College of Engineering; I know several specialists there who focus specifically on measuring the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation.

I work primarily with measurements of the Earth's natural electromagnetic field—specifically the Schumann resonances. My focus is mostly on the electric component, though I am familiar with the magnetic side of things. Measuring the magnetic component is actually the easier part; for instance, Full Point utilizes a coil with several hundred turns, but there is really no way to get a meaningful reading without using at least a few thousand turns. On the other hand, capturing the electric component requires electrode surfaces that are quite substantial. Because of this, you can tell just by looking at the physical scale of their instruments that something isn't quite right.

The actual measurement of the field isn't even the primary hurdle here. The far greater challenge lies in the correct interpretation of the data. Because there are so many potential sources, you have to isolate the specific signal originating from "your" local substation. To do that accurately, you would need a multi-frequency analysis using Fourier transforms, combined with measurements taken at various times of the day, throughout different seasons, and at multiple locations. This is the only way to properly filter out the background noise from both man-made and natural sources—at least, that is how we approach it from a purely scientific standpoint. I can't speak to how standard industrial technical measurements are conducted, but that is our methodology.

Actually, staying near an outdoor substation poses a greater risk than being indoors. When you’re inside a building—especially if you live in a high-rise—the electrical wiring and steel reinforcement in the structure essentially act as a Faraday cage, which significantly reduces the penetration of electromagnetic fields into the living space. Since we are dealing with very low frequencies, the walls themselves, combined with the random layout of electrical wiring, provide a pretty substantial barrier against EM waves entering your home.

If you are truly intent on shielding yourself from negative EM radiation, there is absolutely no need to waste money on those overpriced magnetic covers. Besides, what becomes of your head if it stays outside the shield? It’s easily the most sensitive part of your body. A simple Faraday cage should suffice—just suit up in some medieval wire mesh armor, throw on a helmet, and head to bed 🙂

bluewolf4 said:I find it highly unlikely we’ll ever cross paths on a flight. For one thing, I doubt you travel nearly as often as you claim, and even if we were on the same aircraft, I’d be seated right up front with "smoking" clearly marked on my boarding pass.

Wishing you a pleasant flight, 👋 👋

Zarathustra said:Technically, drinking underage is illegal here, but nobody actually follows the rules. It’s like how spitting on the street is prohibited by some specific ordinance in the US, yet I’ve never once seen a cop hand me a ticket for it. It’s the same deal on planes; it seems like only people from our neck of the woods who don't fly much actually take those regulations seriously...

Look, I travel quite frequently compared to the average citizen of our great nation. I have honestly never seen anyone light up a cigarette anywhere—not even at the airport, let alone on a plane. And don't even get me started on talking loudly on a cell phone. Even in places like Mexico, Guatemala, Thailand, or Turkey (and I mean Turkey!—if you don't smoke there, people give you incredibly strange looks), it isn't an issue.

But what am I even saying? I clearly don't know anything. Laws exist not necessarily to benefit us, but rather to be broken, right? At least, that’s the vibe in the North America. What is the point of upholding moral standards, good manners, or health when we live in the North America? We are North American through and through; around here, ignoring the law doesn't make you a criminal, it makes you a "cool guy." It's a pity, really; we would never survive in Europe with this kind of mindset.

After all, murder is also illegal. Robbing a bank, the government, or a factory is also against the law. Yet, you see people from the North America pull off those stunts and walk away scot-free. So, why shouldn't someone smoke on a plane or mess with the pilot? (And if the plane crashes—well, shit happens).

Go ahead, smoke your cigarettes and chat on your phone, just not on the plane I'm flying on.

bluewolf4 said:Back in 2003, when I was flying from Houston-Kuwait to join a convoy heading into Iraq, I used my laptop during takeoff and nobody said a word to me. So please, let's not talk nonsense.

Do you really fail to see the distinction between a device like a laptop—which doesn't emit significant electromagnetic waves—and a cell phone, whose primary function is specifically to emit them?

Even on a commercial airliner, you are permitted to use a laptop. The restrictions are strictly focused on cell phones, two-way radios, and wireless mice.

Military aircraft operate under the same principles as any other plane, so there aren't any signs stating that electronic equipment shouldn't be used during takeoff...

Where are you getting the idea that military jets are identical to commercial airliners? It stands to reason that a military aircraft is outfitted with specialized shielding to protect against both active and passive interference, making a single cell phone negligible. A civilian plane simply isn't built with those same defenses.

It is recommended not to use cell phones on a plane, though it isn't legally prohibited. Perhaps Delta Air Lines has its own specific policy regarding this.

This isn't just a matter of recommendation; smoking and using cell phones on an aircraft is absolutely prohibited by law. When I flew with Lufthansa recently, they actually cited the specific regulation and legal statute to me.

bluewolf4 said:Hmm... Last time I flew with Delta Air Lines, they actually had designated smoking and non-smoking sections, complete with ashtrays built right into the seats.
As for the whole debate about phones and gadgets on planes, that feels like a relic from the 1980s.
Nowadays, you’ll find almost every passenger in first class carrying a laptop and working through the flight.

When was the last time you actually flew on a Delta Air Lines flight like that? 1991? I have never once stepped foot on an aircraft where smoking was permitted in any section. In fact, it's quite the opposite; if you were caught with a lit cigarette, I suspect they would eject you from the plane immediately—and without a parachute.🙂 🙂

Regarding cell phones and mobile devices—they are strictly regulated because they operate on frequencies very close to the navigation equipment used during takeoff and landing. If you're feeling particularly brave, try using your phone during takeoff. You'll have three or four flight attendants swarming you within seconds. We once had a situation where a toy phone started ringing right before takeoff; it took us about ten minutes just to explain it was a toy so we wouldn't get kicked off the flight (they couldn't wrap their heads around why we were messing with them in the first place).

Hannah Moore86 said:In America, smoking should be banned, provided that dedicated smoking sections are available.🙂

Actually, smoking in the US is already prohibited in most public indoor spaces—like hospitals, schools, and universities. Certain clubs or bars can apply for specific permits to allow it, but if they get one, they are required to provide a separate area for non-smokers. Similarly, establishments where smoking is banned still have designated zones for smokers.

The real issue is that in America, the laws aren't actually enforced, and you're left feeling powerless to change anything. Most often, these designated smoking or non-smoking areas are either poorly partitioned or ignored entirely. As a result, many public venues—especially bars, restaurants, and clubs—turn into nothing more than massive, smoke-filled rooms. It’s a shame.

I read that someone here is complaining about the ban on smoking on planes.😕 Honestly, who is being unreasonable here? Is it crazy to suggest that because of one person's addiction and sheer arrogance, 300 passengers should be put at risk just because they lit up a cigarette and—by some "accident"—set the entire aircraft on fire? At that rate, we might as well have everyone turn on their phones and remote-controlled cars and try to interfere with the pilot.

Every individual has a right to clean air. Therefore, smoking, as a form of air pollution, infringes upon that right. This is why more and more developed nations are implementing bans on smoking in public spaces, and I believe that is perfectly reasonable. However, an individual also has the right to make their own choices, which includes the choice to smoke. Because of this, smokers should be provided with designated, properly equipped areas that are completely separated from non-smokers. Unfortunately, in many places, this usually boils down to a single room where a small sign in a corner says "smoking area," but it hardly matters if you smoke in that specific corner or the whole room when the air is already thick with smoke.

As for smoking in restaurants, I am at a loss for words. It isn't just a matter of poor manners or lack of education; it is a direct threat to public health. Watching proponents of smoking try to deflect by comparing it to things like flatulence, pollen, or car exhaust is frankly ridiculous. None of those forms of pollution come close to the harm caused by secondhand smoke in an enclosed space, which can induce addiction just as easily as active smoking. By that logic, I could walk through the city carrying 10 kg of uranium; since the air is already polluted with all sorts of things, adding a little radioactivity shouldn't matter, right? It's my right, after all.

Smokers can be as offended as they want, but if their actions pollute the air to the point of making it hazardous to others, it is my right to prevent them from doing so. Furthermore, smoking remains one of the greatest hypocrisies of modern society. Smoking is an addiction, whether people want to admit it or not—just like alcoholism or drug abuse. The only difference is that among those three addictions, smoking is the only one deemed socially acceptable due to purely hypocritical and economic reasons.

Only recently have some countries begun to realize that padding the national budget by maintaining a tobacco monopoly and exploiting addiction isn't actually profitable (not to mention it’s immoral). The costs and losses incurred from treating the illness, the drop in productivity and efficiency, and ultimately the loss of life and working years far outweigh the profits gained from a government tobacco monopoly.

So, my stance is this: yes to smoking in outdoor spaces, but a firm no to smoking in public indoor spaces (unless in exclusively designated areas).