Is this not illegal??
- Thread starter harleygirl
- Start date
Mikeinsmd
New Member
Well this didn't take long....... http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422ylexot said:Of course, there's no scientific evidence that second hand smoke is hazardous to your health eitherDon't believe me? Go find something to prove me wrong. I'll wait.
You just wanted me to do the work didn't ya??
ylexot
Super Genius
Not quite. Show me the actual studies and I'll show you that those claims are not supported by the studies they cite.Mikeinsmd said:Well this didn't take long....... http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
You just wanted me to do the work didn't ya??
yle, Your turn to produce evidence. My link is valid and credible. You prove the American Lung Association is reporting bogus information.
Steve
Enjoying life!
I love well cited research, because it always leaves a trail...Mikeinsmd said:Well this didn't take long....... http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
You just wanted me to do the work didn't ya??
The figures cited in your link above (3,000 direct deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths related to SHS) were derived from this paper, as listed in the citations.
California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. September 1997
If you Google that report, you can easily find it, but I'll help you out: http://www.oehha.org/pdf/exec.pdf
Now, if you read through even the executive summary of this report, you will see that the terms "may", "perhaps", and "data suggests" is ubiquitous throughout the document. Even the report states that it's own numbers are estimates, based upon addition research further cited in the second report.
Start following these trails and it quickly becomes evident that the top report is based on nothing more than a California house of EPA cards.
I posted a long time ago that the levels of carcinogens found in SHS are well below the EPA acceptible levels under the Clean Air Act. In fact, almost all of the same carcinogens are below the acceptible levels in first-hand smoke!
The bottom line is that, even though some people truly have died of cancer brought about by smoking, not everyone who smokes will die of cancer as a result. No evidence exists to prove this theory. It's all - excuse the pun- "smoke" and mirrors.
harleygirl
Working for the weekend
Steve said:I love well cited research, because it always leaves a trail...
The figures cited in your link above (3,000 direct deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths related to SHS) were derived from this paper, as listed in the citations.
California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. September 1997
If you Google that report, you can easily find it, but I'll help you out: http://www.oehha.org/pdf/exec.pdf
Now, if you read through even the executive summary of this report, you will see that the terms "may", "perhaps", and "data suggests" is ubiquitous throughout the document. Even the report states that it's own numbers are estimates, based upon addition research further cited in the second report.
Start following these trails and it quickly becomes evident that the top report is based on nothing more than a California house of EPA cards.
I posted a long time ago that the levels of carcinogens found in SHS are well below the EPA acceptible levels under the Clean Air Act. In fact, almost all of the same carcinogens are below the acceptible levels in first-hand smoke!
The bottom line is that, even though some people truly have died of cancer brought about by smoking, not everyone who smokes will die of cancer as a result. No evidence exists to prove this theory. It's all - excuse the pun- "smoke" and mirrors.
:reachingforcigarette: