jimp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in news:0046p5-c0p.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
Depends on what you mean by that. Smoking will exacerbate any situation
where breathing sails close to the edge, like a sudden loss of
pressurisation or if the individual has been comprimised and breathing
becomes difficult. Like someone who has been badly inured and is
comatose. All other factors being equal, if the individual has been
pushed to the edge in a situation like this, a history of smoking will
push them over it.
Bertie
|
