Is this not illegal??

[Mikeinsmd]

I love well cited research, because it always leaves a trail...

Ok :cough: ok, but are we saying that all this cancer & deaths weren't caused by smoking?

 

[Mikeinsmd]

:reachingforcigarette:

:shametoloseyoutocancer:

 

[ylexot]

yle, Your turn to produce evidence. My link is valid and credible. You prove the American Lung Association is reporting bogus information.

Fair enough. Quote from the first study referenced:

One problem with ETS markers and biomarkers is that most of them are only capable of estimating ETS exposure over a relatively short period of time, from a few hours to several weeks; whereas, many health effects of ETS are believed to be associated with long-term exposures that are measured in months if not years. In order to address this difficulty, most epidemiological studies cited in this report used questionnaires or interviews to determine the status of the subjects regarding long-term exposure to ETS. Some studies also used measurements of ETS markers and biomarkers as supplemental information. And just like any epidemiological study that relies on questionnaire or interviews for exposure information, these studies are subjected to the problem of misclassification. Section 2.5 of this chapter describes some of the difficulties associated with classifying subjects into exposure categories based on the smoking status of other household members. As of today, no perfect method for quantifying ETS exposure has been found. Yet as demonstrated by many studies cited in the other chapters of the report, epidemiologists are able to use the information obtained from questionnaires or interviews in classifying the subjects into categorical groups of ETS exposure (e.g., none, low, medium or high). The categorical exposure information is then used to evaluate health risks associated with ETS exposure. However, one drawback of this approach is that it decreases the sensitivity or power of a study, i.e., it will not show a positive association when ETS exposure and a health effect is only moderately related to ETS exposure.

The bolded section basically says that unless we crank up the exposure to unrealistic levels, we won't see an effect which means that we won't get funded for more research and can't ban smoking.

 

[harleygirl]

:shametoloseyoutocancer:

Sorry, sweetie. Life is too short to worry. Motorcycles can kill, but that does not stop me from hopping on the back every chance I get. Alcohol cause liver damage, which can lead to liver cancer. I still drink. Speeding down the road when I am late to work can kill me. I still speed. I almost drowned white water rafting in costa rica last year. Can't wait to do it again. Gotta go somehow.

 

[Steve]

Ok :cough: ok, but are we saying that all this cancer & deaths weren't caused by smoking?

Maybe it is. All I'm saying is that the evidence is still inconclusive. No study has irrefutably proved that tobacco smoke, first- or second-hand, directly causes lung cancer or heart disease. Is it a contributor? I would definitely say yes, but it is not the sole cause.

Science also established that stress, obesity, other environmental factors, and high cholesterol, all contribute to heart disease, even in non-smokers. (This is the point where SHS was pointed to in non-smokers as the culprit by...California!)

As I said earlier, the carcinogens in smoke are below the levels established by the EPA following testing on labratory animals. The baseline levels assume a given amount of inhalation over a given period of time. This suggests to me that the folks who are dying of smoking-related disease probably consumed quantities that took them well above these acceptible time/volume baselines.

So once again, let's punish everyone because of a few overzealous retards. :shrug:

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Fair enough. Quote from the first study referenced:
The bolded section basically says that unless we crank up the exposure to unrealistic levels, we won't see an effect which means that we won't get funded for more research and can't ban smoking.

http://forums.somd.com/showpost.php?p=1256321&postcount=81

A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually

We could all sit here all night and post info..... I read info such as the paragraphs above and decide that SHS is very harmful. Again I direct you to my post 81.

Where are the credible studies showing how healthy smoking & SHS are for ya??

 

[Christy]

:shametoloseyoutocancer:

Ya know, just the fact that you have a wiener gives you 100% chance more than me to get prostate cancer. :shrug:

I'm such a scientist. Now where's my grant so I can put it on paper?

 

[RoseRed]

Ya know, just the fact that you have a wiener gives you 100% chance more than me to get prostate cancer. :shrug:

I'm such a scientist. Now where's my grant so I can put it on paper?

 

[Steve]

The bolded section basically says that unless we crank up the exposure to unrealistic levels, we won't see an effect which means that we won't get funded for more research and can't ban smoking.

The laboratory links between carcinogens and most cancers developed in lab animals were established by administering severely high levels of the carcinogenic agent.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Sorry, sweetie. Life is too short to worry. Motorcycles can kill, but that does not stop me from hopping on the back every chance I get. Alcohol cause liver damage, which can lead to liver cancer. I still drink. Speeding down the road when I am late to work can kill me. I still speed. I almost drowned white water rafting in costa rica last year. Can't wait to do it again. Gotta go somehow.

Get with the discussion chicky....

You riding on the back of a bike cannot harm me, you drinking a beer cannot harm me (unless you drive), you floating down a river cannot harm me.... My debate is SHS harms me. I like me. Just ask me. I also cannot smell you on a bike, I can't smell you drinking (from a distance), I cannot smell you floating (unless you drop a floater)..... get ma drift??

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Ya know, just the fact that you have a wiener gives you 100% chance more than me to get prostate cancer. :shrug: I'm such a scientist. Now where's my grant so I can put it on paper?

Oh Yea Dr.???? Well wimmins are more likely to get pregnant than I am!!!

 

[Christy]

Get with the discussion chicky....

Stop deflecting because you're losing.

 

[Steve]

My debate is SHS harms me. I like me. Just ask me.

Okay, granted. But have you ever purposefully remained in a SHS environment when you suspected it was bad for you? Like a bar or a burning house, maybe? Even though you'd no doubt support a universal ban on any public smoking, have you refrained at all while the litigation is pending?

If not, than you presumably accepted the risk at that time, knowingly subjecting yourself to SHS. To be honest with you, I absolutely hate the SHS in bars...drives me crazy, gives me a stuffy nose, and makes my clothes stink like hell.

 

[harleygirl]

Get with the discussion chicky....

You riding on the back of a bike cannot harm me, you drinking a beer cannot harm me (unless you drive), you floating down a river cannot harm me.... My debate is SHS harms me. I like me. Just ask me. I also cannot smell you on a bike, I can't smell you drinking (from a distance), I cannot smell you floating (unless you drop a floater)..... get ma drift??

Point taken. I am very respectable of other people's feelings. I would not smoke in a non smokers house, car etc. I would not open a bottle of wine in some of my relative's homes, they do not drink. But on the flip side, they should respect my choices. If they stop by my house, I am not going to put out my cigarette or hide my glass of wine. Instead of all the studies on what smoking may/may not do, they need to find a cure for cancer. Smoker or not, this disease affects all people, regardless of thier lifestyles.

 

[harleygirl]

Oh Yea Dr.???? Well wimmins are more likely to get pregnant than I am!!!

Because of men that get us pregnant!!

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Stop deflecting because you're losing.

You're a biased judge!!

Actually, I'm not into it enough to get passionate & find research to contradict Steve or Yle. Smoking is BIG business and it's not going away anytime soon. I'll just do as I always have and live with it.

 

[Nickel]

Okay, granted. But have you ever purposefully remained in a SHS environment when you suspected it was bad for you? Like a...burning house, maybe?

 

[RoseRed]

Because of men that get us pregnant!!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to harleygirl again.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Okay, granted. But have you ever purposefully remained in a SHS environment when you suspected it was bad for you? Like a bar or a burning house, maybe? Even though you'd no doubt support a universal ban on any public smoking, have you refrained at all while the litigation is pending? If not, than you presumably accepted the risk at that time, knowingly subjecting yourself to SHS. To be honest with you, I absolutely hate the SHS in bars...drives me crazy, gives me a stuffy nose, and makes my clothes stink like hell.

That's a trick question!!! We both know the answer and anyone who says otherwise is a

Be damned if I'll be a bubble boy and miss out on fun times!!

I'll just do as I always have and live with it.

 

[Christy]

You're a biased judge!!

Am not! I don't smoke anymore remember. Second hand smoke doesn't bother me in the least though. :shrug: