It's obviously a lie though. Common sense dictates that if it's harmful for the smoker, and he very stuff which is harmful for the smoker goes everywhere, then it's also harmful for those around them. Especially given that the smoke is a carcinogen.
Poison is a matter of degrees. Vitamin C is pretty good stuff. Too much will make you sick. Smokers inhale the harmful chemicals in cigarettes in quantities that are an order of magnitude greater than what anyone sitting nearby will inhale.
The study may or may not be flawed. I'd have to examine the data and come to my own conclusions about that, but I tend to think second hand smoke is either not harmful, or much, much less harmful than smoking yourself.
Remember, the anti-smoking groups have just as much vested interest in proving second hand smoking is bad as tobacco companies have in showing its not. Both have jobs on the line, and money.
Okay, so maybe it's not so bad for the passive smoker; after all it is a/ partially filtered out by the smokers system absorbing toxins, and b/ dissapated somewhat. That doesn't stop it being harmful. Bronchial tubes being logged with tar is bad though. And no amount of reseach will ever convince me that tar in my lungs is not harmful.
However, it's not so much the tobbaco which causes the biggest problems; it's the paper used for cigarettes. The paper when combined with the taacco and burned makes novious and toxic fumes. It's my belief that the biggest risk to the pasive smokers comes from the paper.
(For the record; I'm not a smoker, and I don't like the smell of smoke, but anyone wanting to smoke is more than welcome to do so. I'd just prefer for it not to be near to me; the smell of cigarettes makes me feel ill after a while, and my chest doesn't cope well with the smoke)
Statistics are always propoganda if observed by anything less than a skeptical mind. I did have the good grace to post a fairly neutral article though.
I'm not saying you're wrong to post it. I used to get excited about similar articles, but if there is anything the recent war made clear to me it was that we tend to have our minds made up and we spend A LOT of time trying to justify our ideas.
Humorous aside -- my Father-In-Law is a "Mathematician-Of-Note" and was asked about his opinions in an attempt to ban public smoking at a state level. He does not smoke, but upon reviewing the studies he told the researcher that the best thing one could do is smoke. Apparently, they tried to tell him in one study that cancer occured in smokers at rate A and in non-smokers at rate B. In another study, 2nd hand smokers were very loosely defined and getting cancer at rate C, higher than rate A. Needless to say, he was not called to the stand.
Comments 6
Reply
The study may or may not be flawed. I'd have to examine the data and come to my own conclusions about that, but I tend to think second hand smoke is either not harmful, or much, much less harmful than smoking yourself.
Remember, the anti-smoking groups have just as much vested interest in proving second hand smoking is bad as tobacco companies have in showing its not. Both have jobs on the line, and money.
Reply
However, it's not so much the tobbaco which causes the biggest problems; it's the paper used for cigarettes. The paper when combined with the taacco and burned makes novious and toxic fumes. It's my belief that the biggest risk to the pasive smokers comes from the paper.
(For the record; I'm not a smoker, and I don't like the smell of smoke, but anyone wanting to smoke is more than welcome to do so. I'd just prefer for it not to be near to me; the smell of cigarettes makes me feel ill after a while, and my chest doesn't cope well with the smoke)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Humorous aside -- my Father-In-Law is a "Mathematician-Of-Note" and was asked about his opinions in an attempt to ban public smoking at a state level. He does not smoke, but upon reviewing the studies he told the researcher that the best thing one could do is smoke. Apparently, they tried to tell him in one study that cancer occured in smokers at rate A and in non-smokers at rate B. In another study, 2nd hand smokers were very loosely defined and getting cancer at rate C, higher than rate A. Needless to say, he was not called to the stand.
Reply
Leave a comment