Posted on 02/15/2005 8:24:48 AM PST by SheLion
From your link:
I think he was looking into the future demonization of tobacco. In fact, he might end up being right.
I guess these aren't "effects" of that "cause" then:
# An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke.6
# Each year, secondhand smoke is associated with an estimated 8,00026,000 new asthma cases in children.4 Annually an estimated 150,000300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months (7,50015,000 of which will require hospitalization) are associated with secondhand smoke exposure in the United States.4
# Approximately 60% of people in the United States have biological evidence of secondhand smoke exposure.7
# Among children aged less than 18 years, an estimated 22% are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes, with estimates ranging from 11.7% in Utah to 34.2% in Kentucky.8
For every gay boy that jumps off a cliff, I break one of my cigarettes in half. Just doing my part.
Point taken...I haven't had my coffee today, lol!
I shudder to think, but something tells me that he (and you) wouldn't be too far off, if things keep on the way they are going. Why not? There are already plenty of people who think smokers who have children are just another child abuser. :(
I think it was a satirical prediction
Bout knocked me off of my chair when I read that garbage.
Associated with, is not causation. It is much the same as stating as fact that 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur annually among adult nonsmokers in the US as a result of riding in cars.
Are you positive it is the SHS or could it be air polution in general?
Now, for the asthma cases, that one is easy to debunk. If second hand smoke is causing asthma cases, why has the rate of asthma gone up while the rate of smoking has gone down. Using your logic, I would say that the negative correlation should lead to a fact that SHS is a useful tool in preventing asthma.
Your last two points indicate that people are exposed to SHS. No kidding.
"I haven't had my coffee today, lol!"
Your head must be killing you!
Come here little girl. I am a lesbian and a smoker who listens to satanic music, rock and country.......
bwahahahahahahaha........just too funny.
So how do "free" people and "free" private property owners handle this situation?
Free people know and learn what venues cause them so physical discomfort and then do not patronage such places again.
With all do respect to your wife, I would find it hard to believe that if you and her walked inadvertently into a private property venue in which others were smoking cigerettes and cigars, that your wife's health would be in suc "eminent" danger that before you have a chance to determine there is the presence of cigarette/cigar smoke and then decide to leave the premises, she would be "harmed" to such a degree that liability compensation would be justified.
The point of remark is that there is no constitutional basis for any government entity to ban the use of a legal product on private property, your wife's asthma withstanding, short of some provable, eminent danger to fellow citizens.
UK Sunday Telegraph...
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998
The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.
The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
-------
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.-------
The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."
-------
Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
Pretty disgusting stuff if you ask me.
Heh heh...nah. I only have one or two a day, anyway. Seemed like a good excuse, though. :)
Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects
I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"
I hope you're right. hehe!
That's really sickening. I was hoping those weren't your words or that you agreed with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.