I liked the article. It was catchy, it made me look and think about it right away. I'm not saying it's right or wrong , it just got my attention.
Good Info
- Thread starter malyden
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I am not so sure of anything anymore. Just the fact that FDA is able to look at the results of the lab test and create a conclusion that is different from what others would conclude puts this whole "science" thing into different light. Even the fact that FDA changed the measure per unit so they can list something that would normally not show up indicates that science can be compromised if findings are not peer reviewed.
I used to think that second-hand smoke danger was a fact, but seeing how some of these facts are made I am not so sure anymore. I never really looked into it, I only repeatedly heard the fact. The thing is, I've also heard facts about dangers of vaping from doctors in media.
Someone posted a long write-up about how the second-hand smoking facts came about. Unfortunately I can't find it now. At first I thought, oh no another conspiracy theory, but now I am not so ready to dismiss it.
Sar, thank you for stating this so well. Once you see the man behind the curtain...one has to question previous "findings" from that same source.
Please read previous posts that attempted to offer an explanation on page 1 and 2 (I think...Sorry, I'm having a dumb day). I welcome any views offered that counter any misperceptions or disagreements. Thanks in advance-Ruth Ann
I'm only stating that secondhand smoke has been proven a valid health risk. Really? MANY scientists disagree. Check out the Enstrom study. It was the longest and largest of its kind.
I
f one smokes in front of their children, the chances of their children taking up smoking later in life are exponentially higher
Really? I smoke in front of my children and neither one has ever had an interest in smoking. They are 20 and almost 17. They also have no problem with other people smoking. I came from an extremely anti smoking family, and I smoke. So, in the end, some people from smoking homes become smokers, and some people from anti-smoking homes become smokers.
As for smoking openly, as opposed to on the sly; I never lie to my kids either directly or by omission. Perhaps that's why they don't smoke. Why would I need statistics to make such a decision? I rely on good, honest parenting, knowing that my kids will probably do some things I won't like or approve of, but in the end, it will be their choice, just as it was for me. Luckily, my way worked for my kids.
but this is the nanny state USA government we're talking about, what do you expect?).
I expect people to grow a pair and start demanding that they be allowed to take care of themselves. I expect them to rebel against anything nanny to make sure that happens.
Sure. I will decide how to behave and parent my children. I do not need this group or ASH to tell me how to do that. So far, I have been successful. I have a 20 year old non-smoking daughter who is on the Dean's list at her university. She is an exceptional young woman.
I have a 16 year old who is 4th in his high school class, a class officer, a Varsity athlete, and an extremely well rounded good young man. He is a never smoker also. I KNOW how to raise my family, and I will continue to trust my love and instinct in doing so. Neither child has ever had any significant illnesses and are living testimonies that shs does not cause ear infections, upper respiratory illnesses, asthma, and toenail fungus in children who live with a smoker. Best of all, my kids are non-judgemental, tolerant human beings who I taught to ALWAYS question things.
When tested against real life scenarios, the evidence against shs is puny at best. One only has to read the Enstrom study and the Judge Osteen decision and the mess the anti-smokers created after them to know just how far ASH will go to get science to support their cause.
I agree with Sheri based on my experiences in life. My parents were non-smokers out of 6 children, I am the only one who smokes. I have 3 sons who have not picked up my smoking habit nor were ill as children and are healthy as adults (ages: 34,31, and 26).
The era that I grew up in was filled with smoking everywhere...there were no 100% smoke-free homes because people would let visitors smoke in their homes. As a child our family doctor always had a cigarette in his mouth. There was smoking on buses, in hospitals, teachers smoked in school lounges, workplaces were filled with smoke, etc. The generation before the baby-boomers, our parents, are the longest lived population in American history. Baby-boomers are healthier to date than the previous generation. Life expectancy tables from insurance companies, the CDC, etc have grown to present levels despite the fact that bans had not been enacted yet, nor had time to reap benefits.
How does one explain the "reported" lack of ability to fight off disease in the generations that were born after the baby-boomers? Does homeostasis cease to exist? Have humans begun to slide down the slippery slope and can no longer be considered fit as a species? Or has diagnostic criteria become so vague and vast that everyone has a disorder because one fails to discriminate between symptoms?
I didn't want to get into the 2nd hand or 3rd hand debate because the issue has taken on an almost religious type belief and merely leads to people treating each other poorly. Once someone offers an alternate view thay appear to open themselves for name-calling, accusations of need for a brain transplant, just plain stupidity, etc. When pressed I merely offer an opinion. My opinion is not more valid than others but I do have foundations for them.
Last thought: When someone is attempting to aid me in the guise of doing good while their hand is in my pocket...I realize I am being offered a salespitch by a sales-person, my question becomes then...what are you trying to sell me?
The era that I grew up in was filled with smoking everywhere...there were no 100% smoke-free homes because people would let visitors smoke in their homes. As a child our family doctor always had a cigarette in his mouth. There was smoking on buses, in hospitals, teachers smoked in school lounges, workplaces were filled with smoke, etc. The generation before the baby-boomers, our parents, are the longest lived population in American history. Baby-boomers are healthier to date than the previous generation. Life expectancy tables from insurance companies, the CDC, etc have grown to present levels despite the fact that bans had not been enacted yet, nor had time to reap benefits.
How does one explain the "reported" lack of ability to fight off disease in the generations that were born after the baby-boomers? Does homeostasis cease to exist? Have humans begun to slide down the slippery slope and can no longer be considered fit as a species? Or has diagnostic criteria become so vague and vast that everyone has a disorder because one fails to discriminate between symptoms?
I didn't want to get into the 2nd hand or 3rd hand debate because the issue has taken on an almost religious type belief and merely leads to people treating each other poorly. Once someone offers an alternate view thay appear to open themselves for name-calling, accusations of need for a brain transplant, just plain stupidity, etc. When pressed I merely offer an opinion. My opinion is not more valid than others but I do have foundations for them.
Last thought: When someone is attempting to aid me in the guise of doing good while their hand is in my pocket...I realize I am being offered a salespitch by a sales-person, my question becomes then...what are you trying to sell me?
Very true. This became ideology for many, which makes it almost impossible to discuss. But this made me think about what role or responsibilities scientists have these days. Is it enough for scientists to do research, publish in a journal, but ignore general media or discussion outside of scholarly/science circles?
Unfortunately, Sar some of us on this forum have read the actual studies that serve as the source for many of the quotes referred to by my fellow bloggers. I can assure you that alot of these things have been disproved. Once a study is completed and published the spinners go to work on it and feed the media with mis-information.
One example...the 2006 Surgeon's General report found in it's analysis of groups of studies that second hand smoke exposure DID NOT cause asthma. Yet, everyday I see this quoted regularly.
There are other findings I gathered from the SG's report you can check out at:
Freedom To Choose - Just So You Know...
Once you get past the online info from health magazines, charitable organizations, lobby groups, etc to evaluate the actual studies/reports it becomes evident that someone has been playing fast and loose with the truth. 8-o
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
