Too Old?

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

On Sep 4, 1:25*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:

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 diminishing 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.

In rec.aviation.owning BobR wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:25?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:

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 diminishing 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.

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
smokers.

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net writes:

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
smokers.

Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net writes:

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even
heavy
smokers.

Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the
effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

No ****, when was the last time you flew a cabin load of heavy smokers to
altitude?

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net writes:

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate
even heavy
smokers.

Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but
not conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of
altitude. Heavy smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all
without suffering the effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

No ****, when was the last time you flew a cabin load of heavy smokers
to altitude?

When's the last time you flew, Maxwell?


Bertie

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net writes:

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
smokers.

Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

Funny, I'm a heavy smoker by anyone's definition, live at 1300 feet, and
at 8500 feet there is no effect on my vision.

Once at 7500 feet at night things got a little blurry and I became
concerned it might be oxygen effects, so I dropped down lower and
nothing changed even after I landed, so I chalked it up to being
tired that late at night.

Maybe your black and white, one size fits all, blanket statements just
aren't true for everyone.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net writes:

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
smokers.
Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

Funny, I'm a heavy smoker by anyone's definition, live at 1300 feet, and
at 8500 feet there is no effect on my vision.

Once at 7500 feet at night things got a little blurry and I became
concerned it might be oxygen effects, so I dropped down lower and
nothing changed even after I landed, so I chalked it up to being
tired that late at night.

Maybe your black and white, one size fits all, blanket statements just
aren't true for everyone.



Jim, you must be mistaken. It must be true be because Anthony read about
it on the internet.

wrote in :

In rec.aviation.owning BobR wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:25?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:

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 diminishing 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