In rec.aviation.owning BobR <reed1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 1:25?pm, j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic <mxsma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>>
>> >> As for smoking, that is utter, pulled out of your ass, nonsense.
>>
>> > Not when the air is thin.
>>
>> More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of
Peru
>> would be incapacitated.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Your knowledge of this subject is so seriously limited that you really
> need to drop out of the discussion before you make yourself look
> really stupid. The people of Peru who live at high altitudes have
> become acclimated to the altitude and are not as subject to altitude
> sickness as those who live at lower altitudes. Smoking has the direct
> effect of dimini****ng the ability of the lungs to absorb oxygen which
> becomes especially critical at higher altitudes. Smokers who are not
> acclimated to the altitude and who take off from lower altitudes and
> asscend to altitude can easily become oxygen starved resulting in
> numerous possible medical problems.
Point totally missed.
1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
from smoking.
2) If smoking were "immediately incapacitating" from an altitude change,
every ski resort would be littered with bodies.
3) Everyone becomes oxygen starved as altitude increases. For the average
heavy smoker that will happen at a lower altitude than for the average
non-smoker.
4) Oxygen starvation doesn't result in medical problems, it causes
phyisological problems that are eliminated by increased oxygen.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
|
