However, SHS is a different issue. I trust Pres. Bush, I trust his surgeon general.I don't. It's just part of the rationale behind controlling people - claiming their actions affect the health of others. I haven't seen any studies that I'd trust linking shs to cancer. Smells bad and is annoying, but causes cancer? I'm not convinced.
It's just part of the rationale behind controlling people - claiming their actions affect the health of others. I haven't seen any studies that I'd trust linking shs to cancer. Smells bad and is annoying, but causes cancer? I'm not convinced.The following is a quote from Michael of Antibrains:Those who've been following the thread on Mike Siegel's blog will have already seen some of the points below and I'm sure there are more out there that we need to find. This SGR is specifically designed to do for ETS what the SGR of 1964 did for smoking: move the general belief that something is probably bad for you into the "established" world view of "We have all accepted this now and it's time to move on to something else." With the 64 report it was smoking/lung cancer. With the ETS report it's ETS/bunch of stuff.
This report is much sloppier than the 64 report however, and it's in that sloppiness that we can make our points. It's very clearly a political document more than a scientific one, and some of the statements within are bound to be far enough out there that we can point to them and make people realize that the rest of the document may not be much better.
The two points on the Blog responses that stood out for me were:
1) one second of exposure = start of cancer. That's in line with their zero-tolerance "no safe level" thing, but it seems to be phrased in such a way that the general public might be open to scoffing at the idea more than they have in the past if it's emphasized right. To accept such a statement as reality, we'd also have to accept that one second of exposure to daylight = start of cancer or one second of exposure to the air in a room where someone is drinking a beer = start of cancer.
2) smokeless tobacco is as risky (dangerous? Dunno the exact wording) as smoking tobacco. This statement, unless possibly applied only to the question of "addiction", is so CLEARLY ridiculous to anyone in the medical community that it should wind up giving Mike Siegel's skepticism about the Antis a lot of credibility and may open up more researchers to an attitude of criticism of them.
3) Helena, the report only mentions Helena twice, and we evidently have them scared enough that at least in the first mention they ringed what they said with a bunch of weasel words (might, etc) but mentioning it at ALL without mentioning the substantial criticisms surrounding it is a major weakness that should be pounced upon. Dave and I have been working on some stuff regarding Helena that should, with any luck at all, be pretty powerful when it's completed over the next couple of months. Helena is a wonderful Achilles heel that we need to always bring to the forefront for the media. If you haven't visited the Rapid Response area for the last year or so there you definitely should familiarize yourself with it. Start here:
and read downward.
The Antis are hoping to put a cork in us with this report.
Let's turn around, give a BIG fart, and send it flying back in their faces!