Somebody asked for a link to the big power tubes I worked with ...

Well yeah exactly in my instance my 'kid.'

Good post and I agree. One thing tho and it isn't much proof is that one of my brother in laws spent his entire working life inside a furnace room with huge arc furnaces. Certainly the ozone levels were off the chart but he is in his mid 50's and is the picture of health. In my case I'm not going to worry about it. If the cigs don't kill me something else will and at this point I really don't give a shit.

Starbucks house blend here in my Cuisinart Grind and Brew. Or a 2 mile drive or ride or bicycle to the closest Starbucks. We're fortunate to have a bike trail through the park that starts half a mile from home and ends up at one of the local Starbucks :)

I don't smoke much plus I ride my Trek Navigator 400 about 50 miles a week. Back before the knee problem I was riding another Trek about 140 miles a week. During the course of one summer recess from my kids school I logged over 1500 miles in 11 weeks.

In Ohio there is no helmet law. And really that's the way it should be everywhere. If you want to spill your brains out on the road that should be your choice. Next thing you know the govt will be writing laws to wear head protection all the time so if you fall you don't hurt your head. But while all this is going down our kids still don't wear seatbelts on public transportation or on school busses.

Something must be wrong. Nobody thanks me or ever agrees with me.

Well, that's one way to get a good suntan. However electric arc furnaces don't generate as much ozone as you might suspect:

(I've only skimmed the article). It concludes: - Human toxicity potential of electric arc furnace is only 22% from that of cupola furnace; - Electric arc furnace has no global warming potential; My guess(tm) is that's because it's the UV that breaks the molecular oxygen bonds. The UV is either submerged, or the atmosphere in the electric arc furnace is lacking in sufficient oxygen to create an ozone problem.

Also, I was the picture of health until I turned 52. Then, bad genetics, youthful folly, battle damage, and bad luck all struck at one time. The problem with healthy people is that they don't go looking for problems. The typical medical checkup doesn't work. Usually the doctor asks "Is anything wrong"? If the answer is nothing, he just schedules another appointment for next year. No tests are run, no diagnostics, no preventive medicine, no fishing expedition, and certainly nothing that an insurance company would disallow are performed. It's like electronics with the bulging electrolytic capacitors. The device works just fine, until all the caps short out. You could predict the failure by just opening the case and looking for bulging capacitors, but who tears apart working electronics looking for problems? (Hint: I do, sometimes).

The current high-fashion medical theory is that heredity and genetics have a huge effect on ones susceptibility to a wide range of maladies and diseases. One of the proposed applications of gene sequencing and genetic testing is to determine whether someone is prone to everything from hang nail to heart disease. One could be denied a job or promotion on such a basis. The list of genetically testable potential problems grows ever day. One result is that a group of normal workers, exposed to various hazardous chemicals, such as ozone, might have a wide range of possible long term reactions. The short term reactions are probably uniform, but the long term exposure effects probably varies substantially. Your brother in law might be one of the lucky ones. (Choose your parents wisely). Natural selection also works in the workplace. Those still working are the survivors. The rest are dead, sick, or promoted to safer management positions.

In other words, don't assume that just because long term ozone exposure hasn't affected your brother in law, that you're safe. If your genetics is lacking, your could be at risk. It may be many years before gene testing has progressed to the point where susceptibility to chemical exposure can be predicted. Even so, I'm not sure any of us really want to know if we're going to catch some disgusting disease in the distant future.

As for cigarettes, my father's former partner incinerated several packs per day of unfiltered cancer sticks all his life. He died at age 78 from a fall. No heart, lung, or other problems. On the other hand, my mother smoked all her life, tried to quit many times, and died at age 52 from a heart attack. Which anecdote would you consider appropriate? (Hint: I don't smoke).

My dad smoked on and off (more on than off) all his life. He would quit when one of his friends died of cancer :) then start again. He finally died in 2004 of stomach cancer but ten years earlier had beaten colon cancer. I don't attribute those lymphomas to smoking but rather to his love of nitrate/nitrite soaked ham/baked ham etc... I try to stear away from that evil stuff when possible.

You just can't tell really, can you ? My dad also beat colon cancer, and went on to die 13 years later of stomach cancer, and he never smoked a single cigarette all his life. I can't think of any particular foods that he was especially fond of either, which are known to have any carcinogenic connections. In fact I would have said that overall, he ate fairly healthily. I think in a lot of cases, you are just genetically predisposed to these diseases.

Arfa

Wow very similar cases! You're right about the genetics. Especially with lymphomas of the gut. Had the camera tube shoved up my backside when I turned 50, nothing of interest seen. Probably should repeat it every 5 years. No history of prostrate in the family so I'm probably ok there. No real history of early deaths due to cancers but who knows what's in store?