second hand smoke

[Shifty]

Quoting the National Cancer Institute? That seems like a pretty non-biased source . That's like quoting Fox News trying to prove that Democrats are inferior to Republicans. Of course those governmental agencies make those claims; those claims serve only to "justify" larger budgets for the agencies involved. They will of course claim that second-hand smoke is bad, and use their "findings" to request more money from the government to "educate" the idiotic masses who can't take care of themselves.

Here's a quote from Tobacco.org, that says second-hand doesn't cause cancer:

http://www.tobacco.org/news/261531.html

Seems pretty airtight to me.

Holy fuck bro. You're quoting the fucking Wyoming Tribune-Eagle. And you facepalm me?

Does smoke inhaled from a cigarette cause cancer?

 

[Will E Worm]

Kingpin [On smoking]
Ishmael: You should try to quit. They say its bad for your heart, your lungs. It quickens the aging process.
Roy: Who's done more research than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry? They say its harmless. Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke.

 

[StanScratch]

Here's a quote from Tobacco.org, that says second-hand doesn't cause cancer:

http://www.tobacco.org/news/261531.html

Seems pretty airtight to me.

You just gave us a quote which points to a Letter to the Editor. Do you have any links which have any actual research, rather than opinion?

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Sabrina, filtered cigarette smoke causes cancer. Second hand cigarette smoke is unfiltered. Therefore, _____.

In any case:

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent)

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

It would be curious to say the least if the government who puts the rule in place declared something different than that. Link me a final definitive study, not a government piece of self indulgent propaganda.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

I can link you the actual studies (at least 15 of them from different countries) where very well known scientists conclude that there is no definitice connection between second hand smoke and cancer.

In any case, even if, then they have to shut pre processed food down, stop adding fluoride into water, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners into food etc etc etc. I'm tired of anti booze smoke and drugs crusades, sorry.

 

[PlumpRump]

Does smoke inhaled from a cigarette cause cancer?

Scientific studies have been conducted that can answer that question with either a "yes" or a "no." My point is that the motives behind each groups' findings are, IMO, heavily based on a predetermined bias, leading to predetermined outcomes based on their own agendas.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

scientific studies have been conducted that can answer that question with either a "yes" or a "no." my point is that the motives behind each groups' findings are, imo, heavily based on a predetermined bias, leading to predetermined outcomes based on their own agendas.

kudos

 

[PlumpRump]

I couldn't give a rats ass if you smoke. Smoke yourself to death, I don't care.
However, if you find the need to smoke in front of me or a fellow non-smoker, then we reserve the right to literally piss over every inch of your being, followed up with encasing your head in a jar with a fat man's fart after he eats a jar of pickled eggs.

What if the smoking were being conducted in an allowed area, and the smoking had commenced prior to your arrival? Would you still reserve the aforementioned "right?"

 

[Shifty]

It would be curious to say the least if the government who puts the rule in place declared something different than that. Link me a final definitive study, not a government piece of self indulgent propaganda.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

I can link you the actual studies (at least 15 of them from different countries) where very well known scientists conclude that there is no definitice connection between second hand smoke and cancer.

In any case, even if, then they have to shut pre processed food down, stop adding fluoride into water, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners into food etc etc etc. I'm tired of anti booze smoke and drugs crusades, sorry.

Scientific studies have been conducted that can answer that question with either a "yes" or a "no." My point is that the motives behind each groups' findings are, IMO, heavily based on a predetermined bias, leading to predetermined outcomes based on their own agendas.

A leading cancer research institution doesn't share your ideas:

Second-hand smoke is a health hazard for you and your family. There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

http://www.pmhf.ca/Pages/NewsAndMedia/NewsStory.aspx?s=398

Second-hand smoke is also a recognized risk factor. Research indicates that living with a smoker raises a person’s risk for the disease by 24 percent.

http://www.pmhf.ca/Pages/ItsPersonal/ItsPersonal.Story.aspx?s=135

Please do not claim this organization warns of the dangers of second hand smoke in the interest of funding. That would be total, utter nonsense.

For the record, I should not have to post links. This is pure, elementary common sense.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

I get what your saying and yeah...

Yeah nice veggies can be a problem in the US depending where you live

 

[StanScratch]

What if the smoking were being conducted in an allowed area, and the smoking had commenced prior to your arrival? Would you still reserve the aforementioned "right?"

And did I say anything about allowable smoking areas not being created, or would you like to create another argument out of thin air.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

It's absolutely horrible. Just dredful. I spent a couple weeks at y aunt's last month and even though she only went 10-12 a day, I nearly went nuts having to smell that shit. At the very least people can bring that shit outside but it makes it harder for her since she's at 10 degrees (give or take 10) about 6 months of the year. I was glad to get out of there though.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

A leading cancer research institution doesn't share your ideas:

Second-hand smoke is a health hazard for you and your family. There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

http://www.pmhf.ca/Pages/NewsAndMedia/NewsStory.aspx?s=398

Second-hand smoke is also a recognized risk factor. Research indicates that living with a smoker raises a person’s risk for the disease by 24 percent.

http://www.pmhf.ca/Pages/ItsPersonal/ItsPersonal.Story.aspx?s=135

Please do not claim this organization warns of the dangers of second hand smoke in the interest of funding.

I don't mean to offend you. I just repeat that i can link you as legit studies claiming that there is no evidence that second hand smoke and cancer are related. You are entitled to believe in whichever theory as i am. The fact is that they are both: theories. There is no definitive word on this topic, yet.
For every link in favour you will throw in here i can throw you a link against it.

Said this, to go back to the original post, i don't like ANY governmental entity to choose for me without consistency and evidence. I am well mannered and brained enough to not bother bothered no smokers with my second hand smoke those two times a month when i smoke. Between a nanny state and common sense i opt for the second. I'm a bit of a respectful anarchic, sorry

 

[Shifty]

Sabrina, no need to be sorry. We're simply debating.

However, there is plenty of proof that cigarette smoke is harmful. It is loaded with carcinogens - it's common knowledge. Most of us know at least one person affected in some way by cancer caused by smoking.

Forget the studies for a second and just ask yourself how second-hand smoke cannot be harmful when filtered smoke inhaled from a cigarette is harmful? Or, how second-hand smoke cannot be harmful when car exhaust is harmful?

 

[PlumpRump]

One of the leading cancer research institutions on this planet doesn't share your beliefs.

Second-hand smoke is a health hazard for you and your family. There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

http://www.pmhf.ca/Pages/NewsAndMedia/NewsStory.aspx?s=398

Second-hand smoke is also a recognized risk factor. Research indicates that living with a smoker raises a person’s risk for the disease by 24 percent.

http://www.pmhf.ca/Pages/ItsPersonal/ItsPersonal.Story.aspx?s=135

Of course they don't share my beliefs, it's more profitable for them that way. The PMHF is more than partially government funded. Of course they toe the government line on the smoking issue, it gets them more money for "research," and "education."

Like I said before, the motives of the source need to be considered before passing judgement on alleged "findings."

Here's a study done by the University of Vienna that found, definitively according to them, that smoking is healthy for you arteries:
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/05/smoking_is_healthy_for_your_arteries.html

Here's a study by an Oxford research scientist that found that diesel engines are more dangerous to your health than smoking cigarettes:
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

I completely understand the point you're trying to make. But, look at the studies for and against, and it is pretty plain to see that most findings on this issue are predetermined based on each particular group's best interests.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Sabrina, no need to be sorry. We're simply debating.

However, there is plenty of proof that cigarette smoke is harmful. It is loaded with carcinogens - it's common knowledge. Most of us know at least one person affected in some way by cancer caused by smoking.

Forget the studies for a second and just ask yourself how second-hand smoke cannot be harmful when filtered smoke inhaled from a cigarette is harmful? Or, how second-hand smoke cannot be harmful when car exhaust is harmful?

I see what you're saying. I'm not excluding that it's harmful. I'm saying we don't know if it's harmful and for sure we don't know if it's more harmful than pre-processed food or flouride in water. I don't see crusades about those stuff, so i'd like to let ppl free to decide also about second hand smoke.

 

[Hot Mega]

I don't smoke (cigarettes) and never have but the hysteria over 'second hand' smoke is just stupid.

I can understand people who are subjected long term breathing of 'second hand' smoke fearing the same health concerns as someone paying for their smoke first hand.

But the skittishness over near chance catching of an occasional whiff of someone's cigarette smoke would be hilarious to watch if it weren't so sad.

People!! First hand smoke doesn't kill everyone. How is the occasional nuisance of a passerby's cig going to kill you?? Some people go bonkers if they happen to be out in all the open air (out there) then they happen to catch wind of a cig. More than likely is the case you only noticed it because it interrupted the mixture of all the other pollution you're breathing.

Some people complain about barely smelling someone else's cig threatening their lives but they will freely sit in bumper to bumper traffic daily all but giving blowjobs to automobile tailpipes for hours.

Or poison themselves daily with the shit they eat then worry about some cig a hundred yards from them twice a week.

I think it's dumb to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. If you don't like smoking don't go to them for work, food or drinks. If enough people don't go, there will be non-smoking establishments that will open. Or they will build smoking and non-smoking sections if the business is there. Then there's something for everyone..

I do think kids should be spared the 'second hand' smoke of irresponsible parents though. Not sure what can practically (practically!!) be done about it though...

 

[PlumpRump]

I don't smoke (cigarettes) and never have but the hysteria over 'second hand' smoke is just stupid.

I can understand people who are subjected long term breathing of 'second hand' smoke fearing the same health concerns as someone paying for their smoke first hand.

But the skittishness over near chance catching of an occasional whiff of someone's cigarette smoke would be hilarious to watch if it weren't so sad.

People!! First hand smoke doesn't kill everyone. How is the occasional nuisance of a passerby's cig going to kill you?? Some people go bonkers if they happen to be out in all the open air (out there) then they happen to catch wind of a cig. More than likely is the case you only noticed it because it interrupted the mixture of all the other pollution you're breathing.

Some people complain about barely smelling someone else's cig threatening their lives but they will freely sit in bumper to bumper traffic daily all but giving blowjobs to automobile tailpipes for hours.

Or poison themselves daily with the shit they eat then worry about some cig a hundred yards from them twice a week.

I think it dumb to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. If you don't like smoking don't go to them for work, food or drinks. If enough people don't go, there will be non-smoking establishments that will open. Or they will build smoking and non-smoking sections if the business is there. Then there's something for everyone..

I do think kids should be spare the 'second hand' smoke of irresponsible parents though. Not sure what can practically (practically!!) be done about it though...

Could not agree with you more. Odd to write that in referencing a Mega post :eek:. But I agree with you wholly. If second-hand smoke were shotgunned into your mouth 15 times a day for 10 years, yeah that might create some health concerns. But passersby, that are within the range of olfactory perceptiveness for a matter of 15 seconds once or twice a week... no way that does any significant, lasting or even traceable damage.

 

[Shifty]

Of course they don't share my beliefs, it's more profitable for them that way. The PMHF is more than partially government funded. Of course they toe the government line on the smoking issue, it gets them more money for "research," and "education."

Absurd and offensive.

Here's a study done by the University of Vienna that found, definitively according to them, that smoking is healthy for you arteries:
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/05/smoking_is_healthy_for_your_arteries.html

Did you actually read this? Likely not. This 'study' claims to have discovered that habitual heavy smokers who smoked after undergoing angioplasty had a lower rate of re-narrowing of the arteries than non-smokers, potentially because smokers exhibit a higher blood concentration of carbon monoxide. Do you consider this 'evidence'? On top of that, this study is 7 years old. Google is not always your friend.

I completely understand the point you're trying to make. But, look at the studies for and against, and it is pretty plain to see that most findings on this issue are predetermined based on each particular group's best interests.

I'm not trying to make any point. This is common sense, and I am quite frankly amazed by you.

 

[Hot Mega]

Could not agree with you more. Odd to write that in referencing a Mega post :eek:.

Fear not, you're just getting older (and wiser:tongue. But don't feel bad...I got warned about my PMs hitting the 90 pct. full mark..went to purge and ran across an erstwhile PM from me thanking Will E. for repping me..:wtf:..

I had to log out...I'm not sure I even wanna know what post that rep applied to..:1orglaugh

 

[PlumpRump]

Absurd and offensive.

I agree. The concept that certain groups will lean one way or the other based on financial incentive is indeed absurd and offensive, reality nonetheless.

Did you actually read this? Likely not. This 'study' claims to have discovered that habitual heavy smokers who smoked after undergoing angioplasty had a lower rate of re-narrowing of the arteries than non-smokers, potentially because smokers exhibit a higher blood concentration of carbon monoxide. Do you consider this 'evidence'? On top of that, this study is 7 years old. Google is not always your friend.

The context isn't the point. The point is that biased, predetermined outcome based research will prove anything one desires. And besides, that article got 4.8/5 stars, seems pretty convincing. Here's another article that says that the WHO is intentionally withholding studies to the contrary and intentionally misleading people as to the negative effects of "passive" smoking: http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

I'm not trying to make any point. This is common sense, and I am quite frankly amazed by you.

Is it common sense? There are research scientists with PhDs that disagree with both of us. So what makes one set of findings anymore irrefutable than another?