Secondhand smoke is harmless
- Thread starter Lilvapie
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Last edited by a moderator:
Gee, do you really think I haven't heard the Penn and Teller joke before? So not only are you incapable of backing up you claim (while asking others to back up thiers) but you can't even be original in you attempt to side step it with humor.
Still waiting for you to back up your claim.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Reading comprehension? Closest thing to a claim I have is that I haven't seen clear evidence from either side. Do you have clear evidence to support your side?
Still waiting...
The 2 links in OP provide a basis for the claim by OP. The Rush one I reckon will forever be disputed by naysayers, just as if Rush said something similar on vaping and vapers agreed while ANTZ leaning Democratic Senators may disagree simply because Rush is stating it. But the other link walks one through the issue. So, let's quote from that, shall we?
And
This is stating that correlation cannot prove causation. It explains the science (or statistical analysis) to support that assertion.
I continue to find the (actual) science around SHS lacking what anti-tobacco advocates claim the science points to. And further challenge vapers to provide a source of science that establishes harm of SHS that also DOES NOT have scientific studies which point to (enormous) harm caused by vaping. IOW, I strongly believe that this science is junk in the same way that their vaping science is junk. And really really see the vaping science as extension of the earlier assertions put forth but were not rigorously questioned because the campaign against BT was very strong and occurred at a time before the information age, or at best in the very early stages. Had that same campaign (that started circa 1960) started in last few years, I believe it would've been as soundly dismissed as the vaping junk science has so far. But because it wasn't soundly dismissed, and because many people to this day treat it as infallible, then vaping has a very tough uphill battle. Most of us know our adversaries are preaching junk science and that the public is seemingly willing to swallow it whole, or without much critical analysis. And I would say the #1 reason for this is because most people are clueless how much they were deceived by ANTZ on the anti-tobacco campaign over the last 50 or so years. Whenever I bring these points to average person that tries to parrot some age old ANTZ rhetoric, they literally can't hold the conversation and are seeking as early of an exit as possible, hoping to retain their closed minded views and be on their merry way.
More links / info to support what is stated in OP:
Secondhand Smoke Study Raises Ire:
Study Shows No Association Between Passive Smoke and Health Risks; Others Criticize Research
"The new study, to be published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical Journal, shows no measurable rates of heart disease or lung cancer among nonsmokers who ever lived with smokers, and reports only a slight increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Many health agencies, including the U.S. Surgeon General's Office, have long said that secondhand smoke boosts the risk of heart disease by about 30% and lung cancer risk by 25% in nonsmokers.
"We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level," lead researcher James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health, tells WebMD. "The only thing we did find, which was not reported in the study, is that nonsmokers who live with smokers have a increased risk of widowhood because their smoking spouses do die prematurely."
Dont believe the lies about secondhand smoke
"Dr. Siegel is a professor at Boston Universitys School of Public Health. He has spent 25 years in the field of tobacco control and spent two years working in the Office of Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control, where he conducted research on secondhand smoke and cigarette advertising:
Fortunately, it is simply not true that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease. Luckily, it takes many years of exposure before the process of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) can occur. If brief tobacco smoke exposure could cause heart disease, we would sadly see many young people in their twenties and thirties walking around with cardiovascular disease, and many dying from it at those ages. Even active smoking does not generally lead to heart disease unless you smoke for many years. Thus, it is simply untrue to assert that brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease."
I honestly could provide at least 2 more scientific type links, and probably a dozen more if truly desired. But how about a vaper providing just one link to harms of SHS by an organization that just so happens to not have any scientific claims against vaping? I frankly do not believe I have ever seen such an animal.
Secondhand Smoke Study Raises Ire:
Study Shows No Association Between Passive Smoke and Health Risks; Others Criticize Research
"The new study, to be published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical Journal, shows no measurable rates of heart disease or lung cancer among nonsmokers who ever lived with smokers, and reports only a slight increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Many health agencies, including the U.S. Surgeon General's Office, have long said that secondhand smoke boosts the risk of heart disease by about 30% and lung cancer risk by 25% in nonsmokers.
"We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level," lead researcher James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health, tells WebMD. "The only thing we did find, which was not reported in the study, is that nonsmokers who live with smokers have a increased risk of widowhood because their smoking spouses do die prematurely."
Dont believe the lies about secondhand smoke
"Dr. Siegel is a professor at Boston Universitys School of Public Health. He has spent 25 years in the field of tobacco control and spent two years working in the Office of Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control, where he conducted research on secondhand smoke and cigarette advertising:
Fortunately, it is simply not true that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease. Luckily, it takes many years of exposure before the process of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) can occur. If brief tobacco smoke exposure could cause heart disease, we would sadly see many young people in their twenties and thirties walking around with cardiovascular disease, and many dying from it at those ages. Even active smoking does not generally lead to heart disease unless you smoke for many years. Thus, it is simply untrue to assert that brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease."
I honestly could provide at least 2 more scientific type links, and probably a dozen more if truly desired. But how about a vaper providing just one link to harms of SHS by an organization that just so happens to not have any scientific claims against vaping? I frankly do not believe I have ever seen such an animal.
@Jman8 I don't understand how you can read your own sources and reach the conclusion SHS is harmless.
Last edited:
I keep saying "reading comprehension" for a reason. In Jman8's case I do believe the lack of reading comprehension is willful. That is evidenced by adding the word "enormous" albeit in parentheses as well as the wonderful internet tactic of a wall of text that ignores the thesis statement the person is replying to.
I directed my statement to the OP for a reason. He is the one who claimed HARMLESS (all caps for those with reading comprehension issues). He is also the one to issue a challenge of supporting opposing claims without supporting his own. Links regarding the connection to lung cancer and even adding heart disease (which the OP hasn't done) being questionable neither disproves that particular connection nor is it enough to proclaim second hand smoke is HARMLESS. The least you can say is it shows the ANTZ claims are overblown on those two issues alone. The most you can claim is it calls other claims by ANTZ into question.
Why is this important in the vaping world? I have already answered that question in this thread but perhaps someone else can reiterate more clearly.
Last edited:
Anyone with time on their hands, an inclination to be contrarian and narcissistic tendencies can search the web and find ''proof' to support any claim . Even the most outrageous ones.
They are often convinced that they possess the thruth and everyone else is being manipulated by some controlling evil forces. Luckily, normaly only uninformed and gullible people will fall prey to their fantasies.
Obviously, when faced with the facts, their arguments fall apart and the end result is damage to whatever cause they infiltrated.
They are often convinced that they possess the thruth and everyone else is being manipulated by some controlling evil forces. Luckily, normaly only uninformed and gullible people will fall prey to their fantasies.
Obviously, when faced with the facts, their arguments fall apart and the end result is damage to whatever cause they infiltrated.
Since you decided to attach to the statement that this man was a previous smoker to somehow make your point, I will add my Grandmother (who never smoke anything) died of stomach cancer along with full blown emphysema from second hand smoke. My mother-in-law died in her early 60's with lung cancer, again, never smoked herself but was surrounded by smokers. I am not an expert by any measure but know my experiences well. It is my opinion that second hand smoke exposure in general is probably no more dangerous than any city air, but it is not harmless by any means. If a person is forced to breath in second hand smoke in fair amounts they will show effects as if they were a smoker themselves.
While I personally agree that the effects of SHS are largely overstated, to make a claim that the smoke from a cigarette becomes harmless by somehow changing composition in the air sound like complete bullcrap. Your telling me when you light something with many chemicals on fire, the smoke has no negative effects whatsoever? Hell after having a small fire in my backyard (a log or two) my breathing capabilities are diminished, I also have harder time breaking when around my smoking pals. SHS just as bad or worse than just smoking yourself? Definitely not, but to say its harmless is simply ridiculous.
The truth is that the second hand smoke coming from the burning end of a cigarette is potentially more harmful than the second hand smoke exhaled by the smoker, the latter having gone through the cigarette filter and having gone through the smoker's lungs.
That being said, the EPA study of 1993 is a fraud. Its conclusion that second hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer in exposed non smokers was arrived by changing the confidence interval from the standard of 95% to 90%, which is never used anywhere as it is too weak, especially for epidemiological studies. On top of that, even using that new confidence interval, the elevated risk was only around 25% (meaning that if the risk for a non exposed non smoker was 1%, the risk for the exposed was 1.25%). To top it all this elevated risk was measure for non smokers exposed for at least 25 years indoors to the second smoke from heavy smokers (a pack or more a day in the house). No later study was conducted on second hand smoke to measure its effects on health. Rather, later studies just calculated the number of (theoritical) deaths from secondhand smoke using the EPA results.
So, I would not claim that secondhand smoke is harmless, but I will say confidently that its effects on the health of non smokers have been grossly exagerated. Its real effects on the health of non smokers will probably never be known, due to the lack of methodological rigor and the bias of those doing the research
That being said, the EPA study of 1993 is a fraud. Its conclusion that second hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer in exposed non smokers was arrived by changing the confidence interval from the standard of 95% to 90%, which is never used anywhere as it is too weak, especially for epidemiological studies. On top of that, even using that new confidence interval, the elevated risk was only around 25% (meaning that if the risk for a non exposed non smoker was 1%, the risk for the exposed was 1.25%). To top it all this elevated risk was measure for non smokers exposed for at least 25 years indoors to the second smoke from heavy smokers (a pack or more a day in the house). No later study was conducted on second hand smoke to measure its effects on health. Rather, later studies just calculated the number of (theoritical) deaths from secondhand smoke using the EPA results.
So, I would not claim that secondhand smoke is harmless, but I will say confidently that its effects on the health of non smokers have been grossly exagerated. Its real effects on the health of non smokers will probably never be known, due to the lack of methodological rigor and the bias of those doing the research
Last edited:
We dont need statistical analysis, the symptoms non smokers experience while subjected to SHS are enough proof for any intelligent person.
All the other info being circulated here is, imo, just for those that have an axe to grind against government.
All the other info being circulated here is, imo, just for those that have an axe to grind against government.
hi Jode,
i am sorry about your grandmother and your mother in law.
however i cannot agree with your statement that second hand smoke
was the cause.i ill agree that SHS would certainly aggravate those
conditions.
otherwise healthy individuals will not be harmed by
second hand smoke.people whom live with heavy smokers only
have a slightly elevated risk if at all(some associated risks are actually lower)
to developing a smoking related illness. i am sorry but,that's what the science
says,not me. the science also says that when the figures are adjusted to account
for economic,environmental and hereditary conditions smokers themselves only
have an elevated risk. a demonstrable risk yes but,no where near that which we are lead to
believe.
if second hand smoke really could cause disease and death why have there not
been any convictions for negligent homicide? the proof is supposedly there.
again sorry for your loss.
regards
mike
Last edited:
Without actually doing the physical research yourself, you are no better. You are simply picking reports that you agree with and parroting away, acting like Al Gore, "the debate is over!". Heh pure BS. Making disparaging comments about the intelligence or gullibility of people who do not agree with you make you look vey foolish.
I would ask what the threshold for changing your mind would be but I don't think any amount of proof would be enough for you.
Ridiculous. Every time I've spent in a smoky bar, or even on a drive with smokers, my athsma flares up very significantly, it's hard to breathe without my rescue inhaler. This is before I started smoking, and after I quit (been quit for 5 years)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
