Granny's gone and done it again

ugg floating moss ball looks out of place. the one on the rock looks ok.
I kinda like it. Like an ornament on a tree.
33CACBB6-4ED9-4696-9B12-F9367048075C.jpeg
73139C4B-D895-4DC2-8D90-C28DF1F4D3E7.jpeg

Hubs was griping about the freebie thermometer with the tank. I saw this at petsmart and went oooh. Didn’t hurt they had a buy one get one half off deal. (Hence the sushi bar lol
8D9B142E-3A26-4B1A-9EF0-1AFCCAF96728.jpeg

ill still do some rearranging. I need to do some pruning on those long bois though. Ugh.
 
In 1929, a cigarette-ignited fire in Lowell, Massachusetts, caught the attention of U.S. Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers (D-MA); she called for the National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)) to develop the first less fire-prone cigarette, which NBS introduced in 1932. The Boston Herald American covered the story on 31 March 1932, noting that after three years of research the NBS had developed a “self-snubbing” cigarette and had suggested that cigarette manufacturers “take up the idea.” None did.[3]

In 1973, the United States Congress established the Consumer Product Safety Commission[4] (CPSC) to protect the public from hazardous products. Congress excluded tobacco products from its jurisdiction while assigning it responsibility for flammable fabrics.[5] The CPSC regulated the flammability of mattresses[5] and worked with furniture manufacturers to establish voluntary flammability standards[6] for upholstered furniture, although more recently[when?] those standards have come to be considered mandatory.[5]

In 1978 Andrew McGuire, a burn survivor, started a grassroots campaign to prevent house fire deaths by changing the cigarette.[7] McGuire secured funding for an investigation into cigarettes and fires which became Cigarettes and Sofas: How the Tobacco Lobby Keeps the Home Fires Burning. Massachusetts congressman Joe Moakley introduced federal FSC legislation in the autumn of 1979 after a cigarette fire in his district killed a family of seven; California senator Alan Cranston authored a matching Senate bill.

To forestall legislation mandating the inclusion of fire-safety features in cigarettes, the US Tobacco Institute financed a fire prevention education program in parallel with the campaign Fighting Fire with Firemen.[8][9][10]

In 1984, the Cigarette Safety Act funded a three-year study National Bureau of Standards (later NIST) study on how cigarettes and furnishings ignited and remained lit. “This understanding of the physics of ignition enabled the NBS team to develop two test methods for the ignition strength of cigarettes, under the auspices of the CPSC. This reported to US Congress in 1987 that it was technically feasible and maybe commercially feasible to make a cigarette that was less likely to start fires.[11] Legislative activity continued in the states while the federal government, cigarette companies, and advocates discussed next steps. McGuire and colleagues continued to inform advocates about cigarette fires and prevention strategies, legislation and liability.[7][12][13][14]

A compromise led to the US Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990, which required additional NIST research on the interaction of burning cigarettes with soft furnishings, such as upholstered furniture and beds.[15] The resulting study, while contentious, laid the groundwork for a flammability test method for cigarettes.[15][16] Federal efforts to implement a standard stalled, as the Reagan and Bush administrations preferred free markets to regulation. The grassroots campaign focused on state efforts. McGuire continued to publish progress reports.[17][18][19]
Good lord. That's exactly why I rarely look at Wikipedia. Lot of words! Not a lot of answers. They have put anti-flammable chemicals in furniture upholstery, carpeting, and kids jammies. No thank you! If all that doesn't inspire you to quit nothing will, so...

Grow your own tobacco and smoke a pipe! Very common here in CA, except it's weed instead of tobacco. 😵

Not a fan of Huffpost either, but this has some insights as to why I still blame the tobacco companies.
Fire Safe Cigarette Laws: More Harm than Good

It would be difficult to say how any given FSC cigarette is made, because that is proprietary information. Burn-enhancing chemicals have been put on most commercial cigarettes for years, but simply removing them is not enough to make cigarettes fire standards compliant. Whatever way FSC cigarettes are made, the Harvard study proves that they produce more toxic compounds when smoked. A fundamental principle of toxicology is that the dose is the poison.

Tobacco companies have put crap on the cigs to make them burn better all along. They don't have to say how they are producing the fire safe cigs. Some of it is fiddling with the thickness of the paper at various spots, but undoubtedly chemicals are involved as well.

But you're right. FSCs aren't a great idea. The slower burn makes people inhale more often and more deeply to keep the dang thing lit, so they are getting more toxins than they would with the easy burn cigs.

I'm okay with giving the government a heaping share of the blame. Can you say dysfunctional??? 🤬 But the folks making and selling cigs have been lying for decades. They don't care about you, only that you keep buying their product. Just don't fall asleep when it's lit! :(
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom