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.
Inconclusive research. Read all the citations and research provided with that paper. They could not properly establish such. Their methods are poor and their conclusions are unfounded. More junk science.
Second hand smoke is totally harmless when encountered from time to time.
The hysteria totally outweighs the potential harm.
Exactly. What about campfires? What about smoke from cooking? What about auto exhaust? Should we ban all of these things? I mean, after all, it is for our own good, right?
Inconclusive research. Read all the citations and research provided with that paper. They could not properly establish such. Their methods are poor and their conclusions are unfounded. More junk science.
Method's poor? Junk science? What qualifies YOU to make these judgements?
Objective: To review the literature on carcinogen derived biomarkers of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS). These biomarkers are specifically related to known carcinogens in tobacco smoke and include urinary metabolites, DNA adducts, and blood protein adducts. Method: Published reviews and the current literature were searched for relevant articles. Results: The most consistently elevated biomarker in people exposed to SHS was 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and its glucuronides (NNAL-Gluc), urinary metabolites of the tobacco specific lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK). The tobacco specificity of this biomarker as well as its clear relation to an established lung carcinogen are particularly appropriate for its application in studies of SHS exposure. Conclusion: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.
Quote:
Studies of NNAL and NNAL-Gluc levels in non-smokers exposed to SHS (second hand smoke) have provided some potentially significant insights on the role of SHS as a lung carcinogen. Prominent among these are the results of studies of non-smoking women who lived with men who smoked.6The risk for lung cancer in these women is about 20% greater than in non-exposed non-smoking women. The risk for lung cancer in smokers is 15–20 times (1500–2000%) greater than in non-smokers.83 Therefore, the risk for lung cancer in these non-smoking women exposed to SHS is about 1–2% as great as that of smokers.6,83
Exactly. What about campfires? What about smoke from cooking? What about auto exhaust? Should we ban all of these things? I mean, after all, it is for our own good, right?
You are comparing "apples" to "oranges".
Cigarette smoke contains carcinogens, and has been proven to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.
Campfires and cooking smoke do not pose these health risks.
Auto exhaust emissions are regulated by the state government, so cars in problem areas (such as California) must pass smog checks. They can only emit low-levels of toxic substances into the air, otherwise they are not permitted to operate.
Cigarette smoke is a general nuisance. Whenever people smoke, it pollutes the air for everyone in the immediate vicinity. Cigarette smoke has a foul odor, and it makes it uncomfortable for everyone else to breath.
Cigarette smoke contains carcinogens, and has been proven to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.
Campfires and cooking smoke do not pose these health risks.
Auto exhaust emissions are regulated by the state government, so cars in problem areas (such as California) must pass smog checks. They can only emit low-levels of toxic substances into the air, otherwise they are not permitted to operate.
Cigarette smoke is a general nuisance. Whenever people smoke, it pollutes the air for everyone in the immediate vicinity. Cigarette smoke has a foul odor, and it makes it uncomfortable for everyone else to breath.
Yes it is Apples to Oranges indeed. Coming into brief contact with 2nd hand smoke out in a public place is nothing more than a minor annoyance. And speaking of nuisance let's ban farting in public, or taking a dump in a public restroom because the smell is a nuisance! I don't care if it's a natural body function, it's foul, and emits a pugnent smell! How about the person that takes a bath in their cologne, or perfume? Again, it's a nusiance. There ought to be a law against it. Or motorcycles! I mean, I can't stand those loud a** bikes! We ought to BAN them! Where does the nanny state BS end?
Campfires and cooking smoke do not pose health risks? Really? Please pass the bong, because that is some really good s*** that you're smoking there! Isn't any type of smoke harmful to you? Even with marijuana, the most harmful aspect is the smoking of it. Yet I'll agree that even smoking it poses less of a threat than cigarettes do.
Yes auto emissions are regulated. Nevertheless in a place like LA where the metropolitan area has a population of like 12 million, that's a lot of cars! Cars also emit a high level of carbon monoxide. Sit in your garage with the door down, and the car running for about 30 minutes, and I'll sith with 50 or so friends and we'll all chain smoke for the same amount of time. I'm willing to bet myself and my 50 friends will walk out before you will.
The bottom line with anti-smoking zealots, is that smokers and private establishments had to cave to your demands. We've conceded, and have now gone outside so as to not "offend" or expose you to 2nd hand smoke in close quarters. What you do not have the right to do is tell me when I've now gone outside that I cannot smoke in the open air! It's bulls*** and I will fight it tooth and nail, even if and when I do decide to quit smoking, because you can't have it both ways! And I don't feel it's right to force your will on others simply because you don't agree with what they eat, drink, smoke, or whatever! The last time I checked the consumption and purchasing of tobacco is legal for those 18 years or older.
Method's poor? Junk science? What qualifies YOU to make these judgements?
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.
Although I caution against the error of buying into the false left-right argument, one might assume that it's contradictory to then cite leftist authoritarianism. But that's only because those people just don't understand the situation.
American politics have shifted totally left .... forget the "R" and "D" after the politicos names ... that's just a team designation, for YOUR benefit, and does not define them! They are like the Redskins and the Cowboys ... playing a football game. Each team has their fans rooting for their side ... but the bottom line is that both represent the National Football League, and both teams have the same goal ... fill stadiums, sell jerseys, and collect huge TV revenues.
Fact is, most people are clueless to the fact that this ideological battle between republicans and democrats is pure theater, and is nothing more than a production. It provides the public with a team to root for, and a feeling of choice regarding the course of the nation. It's an illusion. You have been intentionally deceived into believing there is real substance to an ideological battle that really doesn't exist. Most Americans automatically assume "Right" is synonymous with Republicans, and Left = Democrats. The reality is, republicans quietly promote the same leftist policies as that of the so called left wing democrats, only peppered with the trappings of right wing social rhetoric to cater to the larger segment of the electorate who reject socialism. But at the end of the day, the socialistic authoritarian agenda moves forward, whether you have democrats or republicans leading the charge.
They play this cat an mouse game with the public ...always blaming the other party for the woes of the nation .... when Bush was president, it was always Clinton who was responsible for leaving him the mess he inherited, and he was just doing his best dealing with the bad hand he was dealt. Along comes Obama, and he's now dealing with the bad hand left him by Bush ... and the song remains the same. And the same deal happens in congress ... one side blames the other for impeding their ability to fix "The Problem", whatever that problem happens to be. And the only guarantee we seem to be able to count on is that the public will simply vote for the best liar in the next election.
It's mind boggling that so many people keep falling for this ridiculous parlor trick, year after year, decade after decade, and never seem to get a clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy From Texas
In CIVILIZED Society,
You can't pee in the punch in the bowl at the party because;
Other People are DRINKING it.
You can't spit tobacco juice on the food on the serving trays because;
Other people are EATING it.
You can't spew your tobacco smoke into the air in public because;
Other people are BREATHING it.
It really doesn't get any more complicated or confusing than that (Unless you are excessively "simple" or easily "confused")
After tracing back the origin of your post to which I responded, it seems that I actually agree with your point of view - particularly the first of the above posts. I've posted almost the exact same sentiments in a number of threads here on c-d.
As for smoking bans in public places, I'm all for them...
Cigarette smoke contains carcinogens, and has been proven to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.
Campfires and cooking smoke do not pose these health risks.
Auto exhaust emissions are regulated by the state government, so cars in problem areas (such as California) must pass smog checks. They can only emit low-levels of toxic substances into the air, otherwise they are not permitted to operate.
Cigarette smoke is a general nuisance. Whenever people smoke, it pollutes the air for everyone in the immediate vicinity. Cigarette smoke has a foul odor, and it makes it uncomfortable for everyone else to breath.
I agree.
I think is one of the most disgusting-ust things we have here.
the smell is repulsive.
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.
