Do you miss the era before the smoking bans?

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Being able to read for a start.

As I said, read the research they cite. Look at their methodology. It is inconclusive and most of the research they cite admits this.

The problem with epidemiological studies that use a long list of other studies is they take the inconclusive aspects of each study (a possible correlation, but not validated) and then assume there is a connection, using the bulk of the studies correlation to establish a conclusion. It is poor application of review, hokum, aka junk science.

The study I cited above showed that the researchers picked several carcinogenic substances known to exist in tobacco smoke, and checked for the level of these substances in blood, urine and DNA, after people were exposed to second hand smoke.

And their result was, as I quoted above:

The results of the available carcinogen derived biomarker studies provide biochemical data which support the conclusion, based on epidemiologic investigations, that SHS causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

Checking biochemical data is a perfectly reasonable test for the harmful effects of second hand smoke.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by RD5050

The study I cited above showed that the researchers picked several carcinogenic substances known to exist in tobacco smoke, and checked for the level of these substances in blood, urine and DNA, after people were exposed to second hand smoke.

And their result was, as I quoted above:

Checking biochemical data is a perfectly reasonable test for the harmful effects of second hand smoke.

based on epidemiologic investigations,

Seriously, do you even read your own links?

You do know what that means right? I even explained it to you why it is inconclusive.

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...demiology.html

Epidemiological studies can never prove causation; that is, it cannot prove that a specific risk factor actually causes the disease being studied. Epidemiological evidence can only show that this risk factor is associated (correlated) with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor. The higher the correlation the more certain the association, but it cannot prove the causation.

Correlation != Causation.


They can not prove the causation. That won't stop the summaries from claiming so, but then... there is a lot of political push in that subject.

This is why their methodology becomes extremely important all the way down to the original research which can not account for everything, leaving them to "speculate" as what is the association. It is junk science.

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Seriously, do you even read your own links?

You do know what that means right? I even explained it to you why it is inconclusive.

Epidemiology

Correlation != Causation.


They can not prove the causation. That won't stop the summaries from claiming so, but then... there is a lot of political push in that subject.

This is why their methodology becomes extremely important all the way down to the original research which can not account for everything, leaving them to "speculate" as what is the association. It is junk science.

If something is difficult to prove with 100% accuracy, such as the relationship of SHS to lung cancer, it doesn't mean we should dismiss all of the test results as being "junk science".

Other factors also can play a part in causing and/or avoiding lung cancer, such as diet and nutrition, and other types of environmental exposure of the test subjects during their everyday lives.

So these factors have to be taken into account as well, and therefore, test results can not always be stated as being 100% conclusive.

But this doesn't mean that when researchers prove that increased levels of a carcinogen exist after being exposed to SHS, we should not consider that as an increased risk for developing disease.

You seem to think that test results have to be 100% accurate every time under all conditions, for them to be considered valid.

Science is not always 100% all the time. There are too many variables concerning the causes of lung cancer, that make it nearly impossible to prove that SHS causes it with 100% accuracy.

All researchers can state at this time, is that they've proven that a person has an increased risk of developing lung cancer from second hand smoke, based on the biomedical data they have available.

And I feel there is enough evidence at this point, that I don't need to be further convinced about the dangers of second hand smoke.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by RD5050

If something is difficult to prove with 100% accuracy, such as the relationship of SHS to lung cancer, it doesn't mean we should dismiss all of the test results as being "junk science".

Wasn't asking for a "100% accuracy", those are your words, I am merely pointing out that poor application of statistical means in terms of scientific process. Statistical evaluation is a dangerous game. There is a reason science operates based on a very specific process and exactly why "correlation != causation".

Originally Posted by RD5050

Other factors also can play a part in causing and/or avoiding lung cancer, such as diet and nutrition, and other types of environmental exposure of the test subjects during their everyday lives.

Absolutely, and don't forget genetic disposition. My grandfather smoked for around 60 years, he always fails to mention that he smokes and has had multiple doctors tell him he has lungs of a non-smoker. So when you consider what is causing something and why, you have to consider multiple aspects, conditions, and angles.

Originally Posted by RD5050

So these factors have to be taken into account as well, and therefore, test results can not always be stated as being 100% conclusive.

Absolutely, and it helps when they don't fudge with the confidence intervals to show significance when it is not there (read up on the EPA and confidence intervals/court rulings concerning such).

Originally Posted by RD5050

But this doesn't mean that when researchers prove that increased levels of a carcinogen exist after being exposed to SHS, we should not consider that as an increased risk for developing disease.

Careful, "prove" is a big word and only to be used when it is verified, validated and replicated. That is, if you are practicing science. The fact is, there are not significant (that means they can not isolate a signal) evidence that SHS is the cause. They have lots of maybe, could be, and "I really hope it is because it is what I want it to be", but they have no real validation or verification to such a cause. What they have is a lot of assumptions and some extremely poor methodologies.

Originally Posted by RD5050

You seem to think that test results have to be 100% accurate every time under all conditions, for them to be considered valid.

No, again.. those are your words (try to keep them in your own mouth rather than projecting them into mine). I am merely pointing out a simple fact of basic deduction and scientific process. I mean, we don't want to be foolish and jump to conclusions? That wouldn't be very intelligent would it? Though this issue isn't about intelligence or proper scientific process, it is about politics right? And in politics... well... It isn't what is fact, it is what you can get people to believe as such.

Originally Posted by RD5050

Science is not always 100% all the time. There are too many variables concerning the causes of lung cancer, that make it nearly impossible to prove that SHS causes it with 100% accuracy.

Actually, science is about verification, validation, and replication. It is about 100% as it concerns what we can test and verify. We can be wrong, even then... but... we at least went through all of the motions and the dice rolled a certain value every time to show us it was consistent. When it didn't we showed why it didn't through the same process. That is science, what you seem to be eluding to is "best guess" and frankly, best guess is a worthless as it is simply a guess.

Now if you can show me how they followed the most basic aspects of scientific process in their studies, showing consistently a result, verifying it was the correct result and having others consistently show the same through replication, then you have my ear and attention. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by RD5050

All researchers can state at this time, is that they've proven that a person has an increased risk of developing lung cancer from second hand smoke, based on the biomedical data they have available.

Actually, they can not. You know what is funny? They can not even properly establish such scientifically for first hand smoke. They can show an increase, but they can't seem to identify the direct relational cause. That is, in the cases of their study, they are not sure if it is the genetic disposition of someone, their diet, or that it occurred regardless, etc...

Originally Posted by RD5050

And I feel there is enough evidence at this point, that I don't need to be further convinced about the dangers of second hand smoke.

And how you feel means about as much to me as the process of wiping excrement from my behind. You don't need to be convinced, it is apparent from your arguments, your "feelings" are driven by ignorance and a strong sense of serving your own self interest.

That makes your "opinion" irrelevant.

Good day!