ARe you ready to be called a smoke nazi? Sis boom bah, looks like the evidence is there, after all.
There's nothing wrong with smoking. None whatsoever.
(sarcasm)
Damn, I didn't smoke AROUND my kids, but I still feel guilty as a whiff might have gotten through.
macacas
Humans are far more resilient than the "victimization" lobby wants you to believe. After all, our ancestors were reared in smoke filled caves through ice ages....so stop this nonsense and mind your own business, please.
My dad did three and a half packs of Camels a day and my mom finished off two packs of Pall Malls. We lived in a three room apartment. I must already have died and just don't know it.
I think that if secondhand smoke would be even slightly dangerous to any group it would be children and the elderly or those with breathing problems. No matter what science says, its just plain common courtesy not to smoke around anybody who doesnt smoke themselves, I have been that way since I picked up the nasty habit.
This article has failed to demonstrate exactly HOW second-hand smoke effects the lungs of the *unborn*. I understand that the chemicals in smoke can get to the fetus through blood and do various damage, but how does that affect the alveoli? A fetus can't breathe air, for crying out loud! So how does smoke specifically irritate the unborn lungs?
And on another thread these same people are denying that the unborn are children at all.
And silly me, I thought unborn children didn't use their lungs, so I'm kinda wonderin' how the smoke gets in there to damage 'em.
ML/NJ
This just junk science. Everybody knows smoke is good for babies. Especially newborns.
smokers don't light up around babies as a rule...non-issue
Second Hand Smoke kills aliens in faraway galaxies.
I wish to make smoking mandatory.
Junk Science is real and does no one a service, except perhaps the public funding advocates and the neurotic.
I notice that, as usual, the report is long on conclusions and totally devoid of fact. No methodology. No mention of a control group.
No discussion about the validity of rat physiology as it relates to humans.
No discussion of the mixing of rats and monkeys.
No clue as to what data was encluded from the conclusions or the summary for public consumption.
No mention of the obvious question: How does this study corelate the improvement in newborn lung development with decreased incidence of smoking in the last 40 years.
Do they track?
One would think this would be a validating corelation. For instance, if they track in reverse, it would point to a fatal flaw in the study.
My suspicion is they don't track; thereby the obvious was ignored.
STUDIES PROVE NOTHING.
Who processed the data and how?
What data was used?
How was it collected?
Was it Faulty?
Was it misinterpreted or is it being misrepresented?
Since we do not know the answers to these questions the study is worthless.