?

Log in

No account? Create an account
frank_davis4

frank_davis


Frank Davis

Banging on about the Smoking Ban


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
58.6 Seconds
frank_davis4
frank_davis
Yesterday, while reading the outdoor antismoking campaign Toolkit, I got interested not so much in the chemical components of tobacco smoke, but in the components of exhaled air. I knew that they would include carbon dioxide and water vapour. But what else was there, apart from the gases ordinarily found in the atmosphere, like nitrogen and oxygen?

Pretty soon I was reading Human exhaled air analytics: biomarkers of disease, which starts off:

Breath testing dates back to the early history of medicine. Ancient physicians knew that the odour of a patient’s breath is associated with some diseases and may give an insight into physiological and pathophysiological processes in the body (Ma et al., 2006). For example, the sweet smell of acetone in breath accompanies uncontrolled diabetes, a fishy smell is a result of liver disease and a urine-like smell is related to kidney failure (Di Francesco et al., 2005; Libardoni et al., 2006). Therefore, they tried to recognize illnesses by the specific smell of human breath. Modern breath testing began in the 1970s when Linus Pauling detected (though without identifying) around 200 different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled air by gas chromatography. He proved that normal human breath is a gas of rather complex composition. In the last 30 years, many of these compounds have been identi-fied. It has turned out that exhaled breath may contains traces of many VOCs, like acetone, methanol or isoprene (Miekisch et al., 2004; Zolotov, 2005) and even small inorganic molecules like nitric oxide (Dweik,2005), carbon monoxide (Kharitonov and Barnes, 2001) or carbonyl sulfide (Studer et al., 2001).

200 different frikkin' Volatile Organic Compounds! Not just the two or three I'd imagined. But nowhere near as bad as the 4,000 chemicals in secondhand smoke, obviously.

Oh, wait...

There are approximately 3000 VOCs that have been detected at least once in human breath, and most breath samples usually contain more than 200 VOCs (Phillips et al., 1999a,b; Teshima et al., 2005). Exhaled breath includes small inorganic compounds, such as NO, O2, CO2, volatile organic compounds (hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, esters) and nonvolatile substances such as isoprostanes, cytokines, leukotrienes and hydrogen peroxide, which can be found in breath condensate (Montuschi et al., 2002). These compounds are chemically very diverse. Major VOCs present in human breath gas include isoprene, acetone, ethanol, methanol and other alcohols, as well as alkanes (Libardoni et al., 2006). It is well known that the profiles of breath volatiles in patients suffering from particular diseases are different from the normal volatiles profile.

The source and physiological function of most of VOCs, however, are still not known. In most cases, specific metabolic pathways that give rise to their exhalation are unknown (Zolotov, 2005). Some VOCs in breath gas derive from the environment, because they may be absorbed as contaminants through the skin or taken up via inhalation or ingestion (Ma et al., 2006). These compounds are possibly metabolized in the body, and then excreted by expiration. Other VOCs are generated in the body, as products of metabolic processes or activity of intestinal bacteria. Endogenous biomarkers are not yet commonly used for diagnostic purposes. A summary of physiological origins of selected endogenous breath molecules is presented in Table 3. Factors affecting the great variability in the composition of human breath include physical condition, general health of the subject, food intake, environmental influences and overall lifestyle (Amann et al., 2004; Libardoni et al., 2006).

But then, most of these are pumped out by sick people, people with diabetes, like the man said? Seems not.

Elevated exhalation of some of these compounds occurs in certain diseases, e.g. acetone in heart diseases [17] and diabetes mellitus [18], pentane in arthritis and acute myocardial infarction [19] or ethanol in arthritis, lung cancer, and schizophrenia [20].

"Elevated" means that perfectly healthy people exhale these compounds as well, in smaller amounts. So everybody is exhaling a toxic mixture of gases, many of which are carcinogenic, just like secondhand smoke. Acetone, for example, is listed as toxic and tumorigenic in table 44.8 of the Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety.

And it stands to reason that this is so, because the human metabolism is a combustion process just like a wood-burning stove or an automobile engine or a cigarette. It's a combustion process that simply takes places at a much lower temperature than them, but produces much the same combustion products (e.g. carbon dioxide).

And since the US Surgeon General and the WHO have seen fit to inform the world that there's No Safe Level of secondhand tobacco smoke (a claim reproduced in the Toolkit), then it follows that there is no safe level of exhaled air either. And not just from the lungs of smokers, but also from the lungs of antismokers and their precious little asthmatic children too.

But, as I discovered from one of the links provided in the Toolkit - Should smoking in outside public places be banned: Yes. by Thomson G, Wilson N, Edwards R, Woodward A (2008), that it's not so much that outdoor SHS poses a threat to children's health: it's that they might see people doing it and copy them.

We argue that society has an ethical duty to minimise the risk of children becoming nicotine dependent smokers. A reasonable step is banning smoking in selected outdoor areas frequented by children. Children need smoke-free outdoor places now, to help normalise a smoke-free society.

The Rapid Responses are worth reading, as they include comments from David Atherton and Michael Siegel. Anyway, I further found out from one of the other references listed towards the end of the Toolkit, that smokers' breath rapidly returns to its normal level of toxicity:

in 2007, a group of researchers showed that the mean time it took for a smoker to stop exhaling residual tobacco smoke particles after finishing a cigarette was 58.6 seconds, corresponding to about nine subsequent breathings.*

That's worth remembering. Just had a cigarette outside, and wondering when it's safe to come back inside? Take 9 breaths. Or count off 58.6 seconds. Don't forget the 0.6 on the end. 58.5 seconds and your darling daughter will drop dead the moment you step back inside. 58.7 seconds, though, and she'll continue to be an unstoppable bundle of toy-smashing energy.

I really don't know how that reference crept into the Toolkit. It all sounded rather subversive to me. Maybe someone from Big Tobacco snuck it into the references somehow. It started:

It is customary in my home country of Australia at the opening of conferences to invite representatives of the original Aboriginal landowners to welcome delegates. A common way of doing this is to perform a “smoking ceremony” where eucalyptus leaves are burned. This causes clouds of smoke to billow throughout the auditorium. These ceremonies are also performed outdoors, the site of a new frontier in some nations of efforts to outlaw public smoking. The smell of burning eucalyptus always transports me to my childhood, growing up in a small country town where I would often sleep around campfires with friends, returning home with my clothes and hair thick with the smell of smoke. I have since learned that these adventures exposed my lungs to large volumes of smoke particles, the great majority of which are indistinguishable to those contained in secondhand cigarette smoke. However, I do not subscribe to a worldview that automatically places risks to health, however small, above every other consideration. Consequently, I do not believe that sitting around campfires, nor lighting them in suitable locations, should be banned as a health hazard. Many will have visited cosy country restaurants and resorts where open log fires create an ambiance that transports us back to childhood memories of winter comforts and a somehow more authentic world. Well-flued fires send most smoke up the chimney, but as anyone entering a room where a log fire has burned the night before knows, considerable smoke also escapes into the room, impregnating carpets and furniture.

This reads like a dangerous outbreak of common sense. Further on it says:

while tobacco smoke has its own range of recognisable smells, there are few differences between the physics and chemistry of tobacco smoke and smoke generated by the incomplete combustion of any biomass, whether it be eucalyptus leaves, campfire logs, gasoline, or meat on a barbeque.

..or exhaled air.


* Giovanni Invernizzi et al., Residual Tobacco Smoke Measurement of its Washout Time in the Lung and of its Contribution to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 16 TOBACCO CONTROL 29, 31 (2007)

in 2007, a group of researchers showed that the mean time it took for a smoker to stop exhaling residual tobacco smoke particles after finishing a cigarette was 58.6 seconds, corresponding to about nine subsequent breathings

Frank, you might be interested in the origin of “smoke residuals” (i.e., thirdhand piffle).

Let me introduce you to Chuck Crawford, president of Kimball Physics, New Hampshire, USA.

From the Kimball Physics website:
Second: No tobacco use is allowed anywhere outside on Kimball Physics grounds (including entry areas, parking lots, picnic areas, grassed areas, fields, and hundreds of acres of woods). No tobacco use is allowed inside any motor vehicle, irrespective of ownership, while located on Kimball Physics grounds.
Third: No tobacco-residuals emitting person, article of clothing, or other object is allowed inside any Kimball Physics building. This restriction also applies to anyone or anything emitting characteristic tobacco odors. Anyone who has used a tobacco product within the previous two hours is automatically to be turned away, unless measures have been taken such that residuals-sensitive persons are not exposed. The determining factor, regarding allowable residuals levels and/or exposure durations, is whether anyone is either significantly bothered, or even worse, made ill.
…. Conversely (as is widely accepted), if an individual enters an area formerly occupied by a smoker, a contaminated automobile for example, the same effects occur. This sensitivity, of course, explains the need for non-smoking hotel rooms, non-smoking rental cars, tobacco-free taxis, and the like. A surprisingly large fraction of the population is sensitive to tobacco residuals.
….. Minor (and not so minor) illnesses which are caused by tobacco residuals include: headaches, stinging eyes, burning or constricting throats, chest congestion, hoarseness, coughing, nose bleeds, sinus problems, stomach pains, ear aches, asthma attacks, etc.


http://www.kimballphysics.com/about_KPI/visits.htm

The policy was instituted in 1993

Magnetic

(cont'd)

Some background:

THE CASE OF THE SNIFFING RECEPTIONIST
Imagine you walk into the reception area of a building .
The receptionist stands up and begins to sniff you up and down . Where are you?
A lunatic asylum? A vetrinary clinic? Dreaming? Some combination of the above?
Actually you might be at Kimball Physics, an electronics manufacturer in Wilton, New Hampshire, where smokers are so un-welcome they are sniffed out at the gate .
Receptionist Jennifer Walsh of Kimball is charged with applying the sniff test on all employees and visitors to the company . If she catches even a whiff of tobacco smoke on your breath, hair or clothing, she will deny you entrance to the company's offices .
Company president Chuck Crawford defended the policy to the Associated Press, insisting that "people can be made ill by amounts of tobacco residues that are below the level of sensitivity the nose can detect ."
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/caz37d00/pdf

First, he [Chuck Crawford] was saying that the effects of second hand smoke are present even if no one is smoking . He said his allergy is so bad that a person who had a cigarette six hours previous still exhales smoke that effects him . The smell from the smokers' clothing also is an impediment .
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/swa71d00/pdf

Many companies that have adjusted their no-smoker policies have done so only grudgingly. Chuck Crawford, president of Kimball Physics Inc., a Wilton, N.H., electronic-optics company, defiantly tightened his company's antismoking rules when the state made smoking a civil right in 199L He believes the state's law contradicts federal health regulations and should be thrown out. Mr. Crawford says he opposes corporate intrusion into employees' lives. But he worries that residue from smokers' clothes and from their breath could contaminate rooms at the company that must be kept clean for the manufacturing of electronic optics. In addition, some employees are allergic to smoke. "We can smell a smoker, typically, at a distance of a couple of feet," Mr. Crawford says. "In point of fact, they stink."
Kimball Physics no longer asks potential employees whether they smoke. But it has started telling them that they can't smoke on company grounds, even in the parking lot inside their own car. The smell of smoke would linger on the workers* clothes, Mr. Crawford explains.
Employees who are exposed to smoke at home must wash up in company showers and put on clean clothes when they arrive at work.
Mr. Crawford, who once paid an employee $3,000 to stop smoking, says he doesn't know of any current workers who smoke. I would spend every cent this company has to attack that industry if I thought it would do any good," he says. "We will fight to the death on this."
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xxw06b00/pdf

Dr. Chuck Crawford (Kimball Physics Vice President):
We would not allow a tobacco user to come into our house. My wife would have my head if I did.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zlp47d00/pdf

Magnetic

(cont'd)

Dr. Chuck Crawford, president of Kimble physics, spoke in opposition to SB 171 noting that people are allergic to both second hand and time-delayed smoke and that allergic reactions can occur in time-delayed smoke situations and therefore a businesses decision to discriminate on the basis of smoking is justified.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pbb71d00/pdf

Kimball Physics, Inc., a manufacturer of scientific apparatuses based in Wilton, N.H., actually signs a contract with each of its approximately 45 non-smoking employees, guaranteeing that it will not hire tobacco users. Chuck Crawford, physicist and president of the firm, says the policy is designed primarily to protect workers' health, and has attracted job applicants who are allergic to tobacco smoke.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jsi24b00/pdf

Kimball Physics, a maker of electron and ion optics, forbids smoking on company grounds, and no one is allowed inside the building who smells of smoke.
"If someone has a wool suit and walks through a bar, they don't
wear that suit into the office," says Chuck Crawford, president of the
Wilton, N,H-based firm. "It's a very strong policy and a selling point for the company."
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aos17a00/pdf

And what does Crawford get for his deranged efforts? An award, of course!

Chuck Crawford (Kimball Physics), 2007 American Lung Association/C. Everett Koop “Unsung Hero” Award Recipient

Dr. Crawford is tireless in his efforts to make tobacco control everyone's goal. He shares the policy's successes and merits with partners and vendors in hopes of encouraging more businesses to follow in Kimball Physics' footsteps.

The mentally dysfunctional now receive awards for torturing society with their dysfunction masqueraded as “health promotion”. Courtesy of C. Everett Kook, a rabid antismoker, and the dismembered-body-organ group, a Rockefeller concoction, the ALA.

http://www.lungusa.org/get-involved/volunteer/volunteer-of-the-week/chuck-crawford.html


Chuck Crawford, a member of the Board of Trustees, Action on Smoking and Health.

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=59768466


Magnetic

How does Dr. Crawford explain the "allergic reaction" to second hand and "time-delayed" (that's a new one!) smoke? Does any component of both resemble a molecular structure to which our body mounts a response? If yes, WHICH component and what is the path (spare me no detail!) of this reaction?

Is it true, Magnetic? Or is it just another bit of mis-information?

I mean, suppose that an employee coated exposed skin with aftershave and sprayed his clothes with insect repellent and sucked a mint ball? How would the receptionist be able to distinguish? Also, in such a delicate enterprise, would not employees be wearing special clothes at work? And what would the receptionist do about a representative of a company who is about to place a huge order with the company?

Re: 58.6 seconds

(Anonymous)
It’s true. Follow the links. Apparently the sniffer receptionist is quite good, like a dog.

The policy is intended to intimidate those that smoke. Crawford and his employees have serious mental problems. His workplace has become an enclave for neurotic bigots. They make all sorts of health claims that have no coherent basis, and Crawford has been making these claims since the early-90s. Further, he’s given an award (“unsung hero”) by other deranged bigots.

In one of the articles, I think they mention that if the copier technician coming in for repairs is a smoker (with “residues”), they will allow him in – “uncleaned” - to make the repairs.

Banzhaf applauds this policy. It is apparently a way of getting around anti-discrimination laws in employment. Crawford argues that he’s quite happy to employ smokers as long as they smoke nowhere on the facility grounds and that if they have “residues” (as sniffed), they must shower and put on clean clothes before entering the main facility. What smoker would want to work in such an antismoker atmosphere?

Properly pressed, there is no coherent basis for the policy. Its only intention is to dissuade smokers from applying for positions, i.e., it is a discriminatory policy.

Magnetic

Re: 58.6 seconds (Anonymous) Expand
It would be interesting to know how, generally, staff are treated at Kimball (from the staff themselves, that is, not from Dr Crawford, who no doubt would say that he treats his staff wonderfully well - but then he would, wouldn't he?) In my experience, employers who adopt very strict anti-smoking policies tend also to have a very “me boss, you serf” attitude towards their staff. It’s one of the reasons why, even if I were a non-smoker, I would avoid like the plague applying to work in any company which trumpets its anti-smoking credentials loudly and proudly in advertisements etc. It’s indicative of a generally overbearing attitude to staff which rarely applies just to the smoking ones.

Kimball Physics, Inc., a manufacturer of scientific apparatuses based in Wilton, N.H., actually signs a contract with each of its approximately 45 non-smoking employees, guaranteeing that it will not hire tobacco users

This looks like discrimination to me, and if a company can say "we do not employ smokers" then by extension, a company / business can also say "we do not employ non-smokers". As the ban on smoking in bars is predicated on the health hazards that non-smoking employees are exposed to, if a bar owner specifies a "smokers only" staff policy, then there is no legal reason that he should ban smoking on his premises. Thus the Dutch decision to allow owner-operated bars to permit smoking on their premises, since there is no "hazard" to non-smoking staff. (Although I have to say that I ran bars for a number of years, and I think in that time I only ever had one non-smoker work for me.)

nisakiman

Volatile organic compounds

"...in 2007, a group of researchers showed that the mean time it took for a smoker to stop exhaling residual tobacco smoke particles after finishing a cigarette was 58.6 seconds, corresponding to about nine subsequent breathings.

That's worth remembering. Just had a cigarette outside, and wondering when it's safe to come back inside? Take 9 breaths. Or count off 58.6 seconds."

This is something worthwhile considering when encountering cases of respiratory arrest. (this does happen). Should we smokers wait 58.6 seconds or place a sticker "mouth-to-mouth performed by smoker" on the person's forehead so the ambulance crew on arrival can administer a life saving 'antidote'?"


"...then it follows that there is no safe level of exhaled air either. And not just from the lungs of smokers, but also from the lungs of antismokers and their precious little asthmatic children too."

Now we all are in trouble. Perhaps we should invest in portable oxygen tents to discover that this would kill us, too. *Darn*

What happened to common sense? Was it the first and only victim of what frightened people can produce?


Briefing on the evidence base and ASH Scotland conclusions regarding the definition of smoking materials in the current draft legislation

"With secondhand smoke, the main concerns are exposure to levels of carbon monoxide and respirable particulate matter.

While air nicotine metabolised as cotinine provides a marker for measuring exposure to tobacco smoke, the nicotine is not present in such quantities as to present health concerns".

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/non-tobaccosmokingmaterials.doc

Or
http://tinyurl.com/6e88vnu


Nicotine Metabolite May Improve Memory, Protect Against Disease

"Cotinine, the primary breakdown product (metabolite) of nicotine, shows promise for improving memory and for protecting brain cells from diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's -- but perhaps with less addiction and other side effects of nicotine, report scientists from the Medical College of Georgia. The researchers have also found that, in animal studies, the properties of cotinine may be helpful in treating the debilitating psychotic behavior of people with schizophrenia.

Up to now, cotinine's biggest use has been as a urine marker for tobacco use, although its potential use in curbing smoking also has been explored.

"Many people have thought that cotinine was an essentially inactive metabolite, but we have shown that at appropriate doses, it enhances memory and protects brain cells from dying, as well as having anti-psychotic properties," says Jerry Buccafusco, PhD."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031112072839.htm


Cigarette smoke, nicotine and cotinine protect against 6-hydroxydopamine-induced toxicity in SH-SY5Y cells
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2486261/


Therapeutic Role Found For Carbon Monoxide

"The paradoxical theory that carbon monoxide (CO), the colorless, odorless gas often dubbed "the silent killer," could be used to prevent the onset of certain inflammatory conditions was first proposed in 1998. Since then, numerous studies have shown that when administered at low, non-toxic concentrations prior to such procedures as organ transplant surgery or balloon angioplasty, CO provides potent protective effects against organ rejection or blockage of the carotid arteries.

But, with these latest findings, explains senior author Leo Otterbein, PhD, it now appears that carbon monoxide can also be used to treat and reverse existing disease."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060918165352.htm

"In fact CO is produced as a normal part of a reaction that generates antioxidants in the blood when tissues are inflamed. It was once dismissed as a worthless by-product of this reaction, but now it seems that the gas itself has the ability to calm inflammation in humans too.

"Your body is already loaded with carbon monoxide," says Huib Kerstjens,"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726484.100-carbon-monoxide-could-fight-disease.html?feedId=health_rss20

Carbon Monoxide May Help Lungs
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/EMIHC000/333/20792/317857.html

Research to spotlight carbon monoxide benefits
http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2007/carbonmonoxide/



Second World Conference on Smoking and Health - London - 1971

"But psychologist Daniel Horn, of the U.S. Public Health Service's National Clearinghouse on Smoking and Health, observed that -

"under certain conditions" an increase in carbon monoxide from others' cigarettes might be harmful to someone with a heart condition."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/00622190-2193.html

http://tinyurl.com/36w4lhc


Rose

You can see why they have to make things up.
Even I can see that modern science just doesn't support the theory.

Rose

There have been periodic complaints in the comments about captchas (those characters you have to type in to prove you're human). But as far as I could see, my settings had captchas off. Last night I asked Livejournal about it. They responded quite promptly. Here's what they said:

Thank you for your report. There is currently a known issue where anonymous commenters are asked to complete a CAPTCHA even if the journal owner has disabled this in their journal settings. This has been forwarded to LiveJournal developers for investigation. You may wish to watch the lj_releases community [http://community.livejournal.com/lj_releases/profile], where a fix will be announced once it has been implemented.

If the CAPTCHAs you report are only being shown to anonymous commenters, it sounds as though you have encountered the issue described above. Your commenters will need to use a validated LiveJournal, OpenID, Twitter or Facebook account to comment until this issue is resolved. I apologize for the inconvenience.

If the commenters who are seeing a CAPTCHA when they comment on your journal are not trying to comment anonymously, please reply with the following information:
* which categories of commenters are being asked to complete a CAPTCHA?
* are all of your commenters being shown a CAPTCHA, or only some of them?
* is this happening on all of your journal entries, or only some of them?
* please include a link to a Public entry where commenters are being asked to complete a CAPTCHA.
This information will allow Support volunteers to investigate further. Thank you for your help.


So it seems there's a bug whereby anonymous commenters get shown captchas, even though I've selected the option for this to not happen. My question is now: do other posters who log in via facebook or openid or livejournal also see captchas? Please let me know, so that I can respond to Livejournal.

Frank

Re: Comment Captchas

(Anonymous)
Although I comment as "Anonymous" (just haven't got round to investigating the creation of a LiveJournal account), having to do captchas has only occurred once, yesterday. Of course, I only found this blog a week or so ago, so haven't posted many comments.

Re: Comment Captchas (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Comment Captchas (Anonymous) Expand
I use livejournal. No problems.

So basically what this report is saying is that you measure everything that normally occurs in the environment to the precise .0000000000000000000001th percent. Then you ignore the actual measurements as minute parts of the whole. You declare them all major pollutants and causes of everything under the sun. And you ignore the fact you can make these same measurements, with or without the fact of tobacco being introduced into the equation - and simply apply a name-calling paintbrush to tobacco and smoking and cite it as a cause for any and every ill outcome conceivable. Then send out PR releases and if they come from sources that also happen to be paid advertisers in all your mainstream news agencies and keeps these agencies afloat, then you print them unquestionably and promote them as science.

Great gimmick once its up and running. Like that statue in the Bible everyone was forced by threat of death by the king to worship, top part of gold, feet of clay, the whole thing crumbles and collapses when the clay (lies) finally give way, a house built on sand with no foundation.


Captchas: I get them all the time, one below says "emberse ~120" which I will dutifully enter in order to post.

Also, when posting, the screen goes black and says an ad must appear first. If I go back up to the address bar, to the end of the line and hit enter a second time, then the page loads again but the black advertisement cover goes away and I can post.

Hope that helps.

Before I worked out how to use Livejournal, I used to post as Anon but put my name at the end of my post.

I don't know why it is, but all the blog sites seem to think that you know what you are doing! But Livejournal is OK. Google Livejournal dot com. You will be asked to choose a name (mine being 'junican') and a password. You will be asked to give a password and, if you wish, some personal details. It isn't that much different from from registering with a newspaper.

The important thing, however, is to remember to 'log in' before you start commenting, if you have switched your computer off completely. Once you have logged in, the machine seems to remember you and you can then use your Livejournal 'identity' on other blogs without signing in again. (But don't be fazzed if things go wrong sometimes!)

Yes, that advert is annoying. I have go used to it. What I do is click the X, which stops the video. However, the sound continues. But it is only for a few seconds. It does not matter.

CAPTCHA - & reCaptcha!

(Anonymous)
Just a brief note;- (he said!)

I've noticed that as an occasional anonymous contributor, sometimes I'll get asked to complete a "captcha" and, if I posted some pedantic self-correction, or again, separately, in a short time span, I wouldn't. (Thought maybe I'd graduated to some sort of "trusted contributor" when I didn't have to again! ;=}))

But... I just saw an A0 size art poster on an outside art gallery window wall today, as though an old fashioned newspaper page, and one of the "articles" mentioned "reCaptcha". Interesting!

http://www.google.com/recaptcha/learnmore

The same guy who invented 'captcha' thought about how to leverage the 10 secs we each might spend decipering & typing them in... to help in digitising books!

~ Ross

PS: had to 'captcha this: "therde Land"

Привет народ зацените мой сайт

(Anonymous)
Привет язык как вам мой сайт http://www.baransharan.narod.ru коль запостил не в тот раздел то извините)

Are you from the Loop about chanel

(Anonymous)
[url=http://chanelbags2u.hpage.com]chanel bags[/url], Everyone loves chanel your therefore interesting along with decent Even so not long ago got such a pair of dark-colored bailey buttons at a shopping area and i also put on these after to varsity and as I became in the car That i see these people were sexy very nearly IN HALF! The good news is any variety store went on it back and so i was given a whole new set of two fortunately I am just particularly paranoid which my a is going to disparaging offer. I just now got such a number of little timeless crushed lime stone styles presently, won't be able to be unsuccessful having the! In addition, i involve some reallllllly good old pinkish antique simple chanel that are even so within very good illness we bring in this demonstrate now When i consider some of those my previous faithfuls(: ahaOH, and in case you won't chose the protectant spray as compared with do not bother quite possibly choosing a kind of chanel!

I prefer the following chanel break free . may get specialized. likewise I personally use it with respect to Type. It has the therefore nice and so trend interior. Everyone loves typically the dog's fur that is indoors. It is great other than it become facial lines rapidly
It's not only to obtain small kids.. My mate offers amusing concerning my family for having offered these people but you're subsequently fantastic...I really like the actual gray purple colours and conform to is good. These companies remain stylish way too on this Big apple atmosphere. I know I'm going to pay money for everyone a new two of [url=http://chanelbagsforsale.ezweb123.com#chanelbagsforsale]chanel bags for sale[/url] swiftly.
Vendeur à conserver dans mes favoris. [url=http://chanel255online.weebly.com#chanel2.55]chanel 2.55[/url] conforme, livraison méga agile.
Pareillement à l'accoutumée: qualité, sérieux et efficacité! qui du bonheur, vendeur de [url=http://chanelbagsforsale.ezweb123.com#chanelbagsforsale]chanel bags for sale[/url] à main

http://chanelclassicflapbag.ezweb123.com
http://chanelclassicflapbags.weebly.com
http://chanelhandbags.ezweb123.com