Second Hand Smoke Scam

Fox News ^ | October 17, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[CSM]

I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city

[CSM]

Good read.

[Mears]

Bump

[Age of Reason]

I recently learned that Nazi Germany was the first government to ban smoking in public places.

[Age of Reason]

However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?

[Modernman]

I think, at this point, there's very little smoking-rights advocates can really do. I think we'll see smoking become pretty much illegal in the next decade or so.

[r9etb]

Well, Mr. Milloy seems to be telling us (without evidence) that second-hand tobacco smoke has no ill effects, which is nearly as dishonest as the claim he's addressing here.

It would be very interesting to see a study on health insurance claims and/or absences in workplaces, before and after the building went smoke-free.

If the general trend is anything like it was in the building where I was working when it happened, there should be a dramatic difference.

(As for me personally, once the building was smoke-free I no longer had to use my inhalers at work).

[CSM]

No, but the level of exposure is the key. If we tried to eliminate all toxin and carcinogen exposure then we would have to ban candlelight dinners, and the dinner.

[Just another Joe]

BTTT

[SheLion]

PUFF!!!

I have to go grocery shopping. I will be back in a bit.

Second Hand Smoke Frauds

[CSM]

Great links. Hey, pick me up a big T-Bone for the grill tonight. Thanks.

[Age of Reason]

the level of exposure is the key.

Might it be analogous to the more meteorites bombarding the earth in a given time, the more likely someone will be hit?

Reducing the number of metorites, still does not mean metorites are safe.

[Mears]

Smoking will probably become illegal sometine in the future,I agree,but be prepared to pay higher taxes in your state to adjust for the loss of cigarette taxes. In Mass avery pack of cigs has $1.51 excise tax added to it and then they tax the excise tax with a sales tax.

When smoking becomes illegal it will still be done but criminals will be raking in the profits.Is that what the antis want?Doesn't anyone remeber the lessons of prohibition?

[marktwain]

However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?

No "mysterious filtering process" is required. It is obvious that some filtering takes place, perhaps quite a bit, or there would be no effect on smokers. It is also clear that people breathing "second hand smoke" are subjected to far lower concentrations of smoke {and presumably carcinogens) simply because the primary source of the smoke is directed directly to the smokers lungs, not to other people.

If you just consider the amount of air that "second hand smoke" is mixed with in comparison with the direct exposure to the smokers lungs, it is obvious that the effects on non smokers must be much, much lower than on smokers. Add to this the limited effects of smoke on smokers, and it is easy to see why no significant effects of second hand smoke on mortality have been found in serious studies on the subject, dispite the numerous junk science efforts to imply that they exist.

[Rodney King]

Well, Mr. Milloy seems to be telling us (without evidence) that second-hand tobacco smoke has no ill effects, which is nearly as dishonest as the claim he's addressing here.

It doesn't seem like he's saying that at all. It seems like he is following the normal scientific method of not proclaiming theories to be valid unless they have been tested and proven.

[TopQuark]

Good point, but you wouldn't be able to drive the restaurant either; and, if you were to walk there, you would be required to postpone breathing so that you do not exhale all those germs in the street. Come to think of it, the public would be better off if none of us were even born: no danger of anything in that case.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I would disagree with the article. I guess mainly from the fact I had a family member die at OHSU of cancer and the cause was second hand smoke. If so many people are saying that second hand smoke has no effect, then why don't they call (for example) the oncology department at OHSU and ask them, or call any oncology dept that specializes in lung cancer?

I know my reply may not be the popular one, but this has been my experience.

[CSM]

No. The earth doesn't have the ability to rid itself of the meteorites. The meteorites would become part of the earth. In addition, if someone is hit by the meteorite, they can not recover.

However, we breath all types of toxins that our body has learned to filter and to eventually expell. Sitting next to a smoker in a bar/restaurant won't cause anyone without a pre-existing condition to keel over dead, however breathing car exhaust could cause exactly that.

We accept much more dangerous elements into our lungs than SHS and no one bats an eye. I guess if the demonization is complete then we can move forward.

[Rodney King]

Might it be analogous to the more meteorites bombarding the earth in a given time, the more likely someone will be hit? Reducing the number of metorites, still does not mean metorites are safe.

No, its not analagous to that. There is a fundamental misconception that things that are bad for the body at a level proportional to the amount that the body is exposed to. In reality, your body is a highly evolved machine that is capable of dealing with all sorts of nasty things at a certain level. For most harmful substances, there is a level at which your body is capable of dealing with them 100% with no harmful effects. I am not saying that second hand smoke is below this level, just that something that is bad in large doses in not neccessarily proportionally bad at smaller doses.

[Rodney King]

I would disagree with the article. I guess mainly from the fact I had a family member die at OHSU of cancer and the cause was second hand smoke

What do you mean that you disagree with the article? Does the fact that you know someone who died of lung cancer mean that this study in Helena is valid (or even exists)? Does that fact that you know someone who died of lung cancer link second hand smoke to heart disease?

[CSM]

"I would disagree with the article. I guess mainly from the fact I had a family member die at OHSU of cancer and the cause was second hand smoke."

First off, I am sorry for your loss.

Now, how do you know the cause was from SHS? Just because some doctor says it was so? Do you beleive a doctor when he/she says you should remove your guns from you house if you have children? Did your family member ever cook, ever been around anyone cooking, ever BBQ, ever stand next to a car with the engine running, ever heat their homes, ever sit next to a fire place, and on and on and on?

The air we breath is filled with toxins, any one or a combination of may cause lung cancer. Of course, you would have to predisposed to getting cancer.