Posted on 08/01/2006 4:15:27 AM PDT by SheLion
WASHINGTON -- Quietly leaving his post as surgeon general, Dr. Richard Carmona said he would judge himself successful if he had persuaded one student to make good health choices or one mother to stop smoking.
Carmona's report condemning secondhand smoke was a hallmark of his tenure as the nation's 17th surgeon general.
I see what you mean.
I wasn't saying that the website didn't say "safer" when it obviously does, I was saying that the numbers don't really mean that and that the website is in error saying '25,000 times safer'.
Sorry for the confusion.
Oh Lord. Don't get me started on Mayor BloomingIdiot! That sawed off jerk! Little Hitler, "I" call him!
"The liar leaves town! Couldn't stand the heat, I would imagine, coming from his filthy lies about second hand smoke killing everyone."
Please link us to where he said second-hand smoke was killing EVERYONE.
LOL...decibels are logrithmic!
I think that she lion was paraphrasing.
Do we really have to provide footnotes and citations for everything we say on FR? ;>
YES SIR!!!!!
Surgeon general warns of secondhand smoke
YAHOO NEWS ^ | 27 JUNE 2006 | AP
Posted on 06/27/2006 11:49:35 AM EDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Some 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke, what U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona repeatedly calls "involuntary smoking" that puts people at increased risk of death from lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.
"Exposure to secondhand smoke remains an alarming public health hazard," Carmona said. "Nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces" and by smokers voluntarily not puffing around children.
These are excerpts. Click on the link to read the entire article.
And you know for a fact that you wouldn't have developed asthma if it hadn't been for your parents' smoking?
I guess the hand waving and screeching by the Nazis caused that to disappear down the old memory hole.
Like I said before - you got to be kidding me!
"Either you died from smoking or you didn't. There isn't any 'in between'!"
This, of course, is not true. There are many, many people who died from lung cancer or emphysema who would not have gotten it except that they smoked. Officially cigarettes are not the cause of death, but they are the reason that the person got the cause of death.
"My wife and I have smoked around our children since they were born and NEITHER ONE of them has developed Asthma or any other breathing problems.
And the same goes for my brother and sisters whose kid have had no ill effects from 'second hand smoke'."
This is just plain silly. The experience of handful of kids proves nothing. My siblings and I grew up in a smoking households. Two of them had allergies and breathing problems and I didn't. So does that prove that second-hand smoke causes problems in some people and not in others? Of course not.
Here's what I don't understand about folks like you. Let's say there's absolutely no proof that second-hand smoke causes harm. But there's also no proof it doesn't (something that couldn't be proven 100 percent anyway). We DO know that people who actually smoke the cigarettes are harmed in various ways, so WHY IN THE HECK would you take the chance by exposing your children to smoke in the house and car? Back when I smoked I NEVER smoked in the house and not in the car when the kids were there.
"I was saying that the numbers don't really mean that and that the website is in error saying '25,000 times safer'. "
I agree. Even tho it says 'safer' the accompanying chart really just shows it's lower.
But that's ok. It still has the same meaning in regards to the levels of exposure.
After all, If I smoke 'less', then health wise, I'm 'safer' than I was before.
"Sorry for the confusion."
No problem.
"So there you have it! Some people are affected by tobacco smoke and some aren't."
This, of course, is most likely the truth.
"But to say that 'some people are affected by tobacco' just isn't true. Without proof of causation, which does not exist, then you can't qualify the condition without researching other possible effects through heredity."
Good lord, the rationalization going on here is amazing.
If a person coughs or has trouble breathing or their eyes burn or they get a headache every time they're around smoke, it doesn't matter whether you can prove causation or whether it's something in their genes that causes them to do it. I0t still happens. Period. They don't need scientific studies. They cannot be around smoke.
"There are many, many people who died from lung cancer or emphysema who would not have gotten it except that they smoked"
Prove it.
My grandfather died from Emphysema and he and my grandmother never smoked a day in their lives.
"Officially cigarettes are not the cause of death, but they are the reason that the person got the cause of death. "
You can't on one hand say 'cigarettes are not the cause of death" and on the other say "but they are the reason that the person got the cause of death" because without "proof",those two statements would be mutually exclusive.
"The experience of handful of kids proves nothing. My siblings and I grew up in a smoking households. Two of them had allergies and breathing problems and I didn't. So does that prove that second-hand smoke causes problems in some people and not in others? Of course not."
That's right. It doesn't 'prove' a thing, good or bad.
"Let's say there's absolutely no proof that second-hand smoke causes harm. But there's also no proof it doesn't (something that couldn't be proven 100 percent anyway)."
Then there is no proof and the rest of your post is nothing more that speculation and unfounded fear over what 'might' happen.
What if I get up tomorrow and get in a car crash and get killed? Should I just stay in bed and avoid it.
You have no argument or proof. Just opinion.
"Back when I smoked I NEVER smoked in the house and not in the car when the kids were there."
Your choice. Nothing more.
I'll get back to you in a couple of hours when I get home and can do a Google image search. The posted pic is blurry and I can't find a better one.
Anyway, the answer is USA, USN, USAF, USMC, USCG, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and as already discussed the Public Health Service.
The Air NG and Army Guard fall out under their respective services.
***I do not like to include the USCG because - unless war is declared by Congress - the USCG is now part of Homeland Security and not DoD.***
That is a personal preference, but by law they are uniformed services. Believe it or not, the USPHS has faster promotions than the Army. All of the above get the same pay and benefits as a DoD commissioned officer. That includes retirement at 20 years with PX and commissary privileges.
I am trying to talk my wife into going to go back in as a USPHS officer to finish out her career after I retire from the Army.
Here's a funny story (I think) A buddy of mine was a Navy corpsman during Vietnam. He saw a USPHS officer with longer hair and a bit longer beard than was authorized by the Navy at that time. The guy was in his blues. Anyway, my buddies Chief went up to the guy, saluted and asked, "Sir, are you in our Navy?"
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.