Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the science is flawed and/or questionable, should we be making public policy based upon it?
And, if dangerous is dangerous at any degree, where is the outrage for every other little thing which might harm you and where is the demand for government action to protect you? Why just smoking?
My post was a response to you that you didn't answer. You were talking about people being informed. I was merely pointing out that the net is full of valuable info and who exactly do you believe.
SuzyQ wrote, "Could you provide a link to the best study you feel supports your position that second hand smoke is not harmful?"
Suzy, I'd be glad to provide a link to such a study and defend the study itself, provided you agree to do the same in providing a similar commitment for a study showing that exposure to carcinogenic solar radiation is not harmful.
In reality, BOTH are harmful in sufficient concentrations when the exposure occurs over a sufficient period of time. But also in reality NEITHER are "harmful" in any real sense of the word when the exposures are limited and protected against by such things as sunscreen and ventilation.
Do I think smoking should be banned in bars and restaurants? No. Do I think outdoor patio dining should be banned in the daytime? No. My position is consistent.
Yes, smoking is bad. But, second hand smoke is not nearly so dangerous as it's been hyped to be. The science is flawed and tailored to fit the anti-smoking agenda. But, don't take my word for it. Be an informed citizen and dig out the research protocol's yourself. You might be surprised.
Yes, government has taken steps to reduce/discourage smoking. Of course it has.
Let me ask you a question: Do you think government has gone too far? Why, or why not?
I think when gov't bans it in public places its ok. When they ban it in 'private establishments' then yes its going too far. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking then let them...If you don't like it, then DON'T GO to that restaurant!
But like a public square type of place, then yes they should be able to ban it. And I say this being a cigar smoker. And yes I do agree the whole 'second hand smoke' agenda has gone too far, but I do realize if you are a non-smoker you really do notice the smell/stench, and considering how bad it is, you shouldn't have to put up with it to accomedate the few smokers.
My post was a response to you that you didn't answer. You were talking about people being informed. I was merely pointing out that the net is full of valuable info and who exactly do you believe.
I didn't say it's not harmful. I said it's not nearly so dangerous as it's made out to be. No more dangerous that a lot of other carcinogen's you're exposed to on a daily basis and not AS dangerous as some.
I've already given one example right here in this discussion. Post #403, on page 41. There are plenty of others and it only takes a little effort and Google skills to find them.
Post #403 is about a study you do not like.
Please give me a link to a study you personally believe supports your position. I cannot google it. You have to pick it for me to read.
If the science is flawed and/or questionable, should we be making public policy based upon it?
And, if dangerous is dangerous at any degree, where is the outrage for every other little thing which might harm you and where is the demand for government action to protect you? Why just smoking?
It is your contention that the science is flawed. You need to show us the studies you feel are not flawed that support your contention that second hand smoke is not as dangerous as the experts believe.
SuzyQ wrote, "Could you provide a link to the best study you feel supports your position that second hand smoke is not harmful?"
Suzy, I'd be glad to provide a link to such a study and defend the study itself, provided you agree to do the same in providing a similar commitment for a study showing that exposure to carcinogenic solar radiation is not harmful.
In reality, BOTH are harmful in sufficient concentrations when the exposure occurs over a sufficient period of time. But also in reality NEITHER are "harmful" in any real sense of the word when the exposures are limited and protected against by such things as sunscreen and ventilation.
Do I think smoking should be banned in bars and restaurants? No. Do I think outdoor patio dining should be banned in the daytime? No. My position is consistent.
Is yours?
Why should I be interested in a study of the carcinogenicity of solar radiation? It is not pertinent to the current topic. It does not matter whether the risk of getting melanoma is dose related or not.
The idea that the adverse effects of environmental tobacco smoke demonstrate a linear dose response situation is false, however.
Adverse effects show up at very low levels of exposure.
Here is the dose response curve for environmental tobacco smoke and heart attack risk.
Look at the little yellow dot on the curve in the figure.
Passive exposure at the equivalent of smoking two tenths of one cigarette per day increases heart attack risk by 30%.
For active smokers, the dose response is linear: the more you smoke, the greater the risk.
Very low levels of exposure to smoke create large increases in risk. I am waiting for Stillkit to show me data that refute this. If you have it, please feel free to direct me to it.
"Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Largest case control study ever done on secondhand smoke:
"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association
between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship
between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and
workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure."
It should be noted that the increase in risk for workers in smokey environments and the spouses of smokers is about half what the World Health Organization (which conducted the study) claims. Also, the results for childhood exposure to secondhand smoke suggested a protective effect with a 22% lower rate of lung cancer with a confidence interval of 0.64-0.96. That would mean a 4-36% reduction within the margin of error. Oh, I should also note that the WHO tried to bury the study and went into damage control when they were forced to release it.
Oh, and here is the press release from a study conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
EDIT: I should also add that I have yet to see a case (with the occasional exception of particulate matter) where the carcinogens in environmental tobacco smoke reach levels regulated by the OSHA. Oh, the levels are acceptable, until they come from a cigarette. They can come from absolutely else and it is okay, but not from a cigarette.
Last edited by Frank_Carbonni; 12-31-2011 at 10:27 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
