Skip to comments.The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke
Posted on 01/30/2007 11:38:44 AM PST by neverdem
Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.
Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that...
In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.
Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured."
It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Thanks for the ping!
We rely on our woodstove for a major part of our heat, but we've never exprienced anything like you describe. I wonder if it has to do with continual use.
To me smoke is smoke, regardless of the source.............apparently there are MANY who disagree with me.
You and me both.
Unfortunately Gori was unable to come to Richmond for us as planned, a last minute conflict came up.
It's a common experience in Fairbanks. Might have to do with atmospheric conditions at this latitude. Usually nobody mentions it, but when when somebody does mention it others say yeah but they don't know either.
Having succeeded on that basis with Secondhand Smoke, the enviroweenies are trying to do the same thing today with Global Warming.
I didn't even think of that idea.
My comment regarding continual use was just a first reaction because I know that heating issues are far different in Alaska than in Virginia :)
Thanks for the ping!!!
And the Science (political type anyway) was settled on DDT 35 years ago when it was made taboo, and only 100 million people died as a result.
Wow. Never thought I'd see the day, LOL!
And guess what? One of the Moonbats on our County Board is calling for an increase on the beer tax, ala an increase on a pack of smokes. And that "tax" will fund programs to help drunks, EXACTLY as every increased penny of tax on smokes have gone for 'stop smoking' programs. *SMIRK*
It'll be interesting to see how far she gets in THIS state with that. Wisconsin MEANS Beer. They haven't raised taxes on a keg of beer since 1954 or something...but as the screwing over of Smokers has shown us, it's the wave of the future to increase any and all Sin Taxes that they can think of from the local level on up.
It's 'for the children,' don't you know? *SNORT*
Science no longer needs facts...the pols will tell you all you need to know!
You remind me of an intersting rhetorical somebody on here asked one time. Which would you rather be locked in a garage with for an hour: 100 smokers or 1 running automobile?
Might be the location of the house and/or woodstove. My cousin, who lives in the basement of my Aunts house, has a fireplace in the main "settin" area. I asked him why he doesn't use it. Well, my Aunt's house is built into the side of a hill and he said for some reason when the wind is right it blows the smoke right back down the chimney and fills the house up with smoke.
Well, they're making it sound like secondhand smoke is worse than firsthand. With GW they're making it sould like CO2 is a worse pollutant than CO.
My (pregnant) wife and I moved out of an apartment because the woman downstairs smoked. We may not have been affected medically by her smoking, but it was nearly unbearable when it would drift up through the vents and through the windows.
That said, I have no problem with people smoking as long as it doesn't directly affect the reasonable comfort of me or my loved ones.
The same is true of asbestos and DDT as it is with second hand smoke and gel in implants. Lefties and their brown shirt enforcers, the personal injury lawyers, deprive us of many useful products as well as restrict our freedom.
I used to like the cameras on airliners that showed the takeoffs and landings. Seeing what the pilot was seeing was much better IMO than watching ground or buildings whiz by. They were removed when some lawyers got extra millions for a crash by saying how horrible it must have been for the passengers to see what was going on.
Thanks a lot you wretched parasites!
And there are many here at FR that belong in that category because they support all this junk science nonsense.
Attorney's suffer more. ; )