Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gabz
There is a relative risk for developing cancer from just about everything in our lives. Do you know what the increased risk of lung cancer is from being exposed to shs at work and at home, about 18% (rr=1.17-1.19). The increased risk for lung cancer from drinking whole milk is 65% (rr=1.65).

Where did you get these numbers? I'm not arguing that shs is or isn't carcinogenic. What I was asking is does it pose a health risk at all? And the answer is of course it does. If your saying that a person is 3 times more likely to get lung cancer from whole cow's milk than from shs, I'd say that that statement is wrong.

Back down, please.

?

86 posted on 11/27/2001 12:15:55 PM PST by HarryDunne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]


To: HarryDunne
Those numbers come from the World Health Organizations own study, I beleive.
88 posted on 11/27/2001 12:17:01 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: HarryDunne
Where did you get these numbers?

the SHS numbers come from a variety of sources including the EPA studies of studies that classified it as a Class A Carcinogen.

Here's one for you: ""RR for drinking whole milk and lung cancer is also 2.14--Milk Drinking, Other Beverage Habits, and Lung Cancer Risk. Curtis Mettlin. International Journal of Cancer: 43, 608-612 (1989). The study was supported in part by the American Cancer Society. Same study reported rr of .12 for eating porkchops one or more times a week and 2.42 for pork sausage one or more times a week."" I realize this is not the information I sited earlier, but this actually even worse.

I'm not arguing that shs is or isn't carcinogenic.

That doesn't matter - that is the point of all of these anti-smoker laws and regulations. The EPA had an agenda and a preconceived notion that SHS exposure was bad for non-smokers and then set out to prove the pre-conceived notion. That is just wrong. Regulating things because some people don't like them is rather difficult - so instead they manipulated the science to prove the unproveable. That is why it is been vacated by the judicial system - the EPA and the rest of the anti-smoker groups involved in the whole SHS fiasco lied then and continue to lie now about it.

What I was asking is does it pose a health risk at all? And the answer is of course it does.

I didn't say it didn't. But the question is, just how much of a health risk - apparently a whole lot less than the grubmint and lamestream media want you to believe.

If your saying that a person is 3 times more likely to get lung cancer from whole cow's milk than from shs, I'd say that that statement is wrong.

I would say that you are wrong. I did not make up the above mentioned information. If I was making it up why would I cite where it came from????

No it is not information you are going to find in the media - this stuff is covered up on a regular basis.

I don't dare tell you what the World Health Organization covered up in the worlds longest and largest study about SHS - you definitely would say I was wrong.

I won't tell you what the study commissioned by the US Department of Energy about SHS and hospitality workers said - you would again say I was wrong.

133 posted on 11/27/2001 3:16:02 PM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson