Did you read the whole article? I have skimmed the reports that are the basis of the second hand smoke fearmongering. The studies cited all use interviews to determine exposure levels. Further, they are not able to duplicate results. Also, standard levels of deviation were decreased in order to fit the data to the conclusions. The science is crap.
Nazi Alert
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Did you read the whole article? I have skimmed the reports that are the basis of the second hand smoke fearmongering. The studies cited all use interviews to determine exposure levels. Further, they are not able to duplicate results. Also, standard levels of deviation were decreased in order to fit the data to the conclusions. The science is crap.
The guy who wrote it and his "health policy center" are whoring "safe cigarettes"
I smell tobacco money.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447491
I mean seriously?
He "skimmed" scientific reports, and concluded the science was "crap"
Can anyone imagine if a liberal wrote this?
LOL
Please, stop embarrassing yourself. Where the hell do you people get the idea that you have any standing with anybody, to dispute scientists?
You sound like Dano to me now. Grasping on to a few fringe studies and passing that on as generally accepted science.
Again. You can listen to Gio Batta Bing batta bang if you want to. I'm going with the surgeon general and his biomarkers.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
___________________________
Yeah. Maybe RSTring's right. I know that sometimes I like to fib about my cotinine levels.
Hellllloooooo!!!!!!!!!!! Its like he stole a page from the Dano playbook. Did you notice that Gio's writing for the Cato institute?
Oh yes, Cato jumped out at me right away. That's why I googled his public health policy center, and then saw what he is writing about safe cigarettes.
Yes, RS sounds like Dano in this thread. It's just like Dano's "global warming hoax" threads.
LOL. Yeah. A little known fact is that a chapter was omitted in the last hours of before publication in 'mein kempf' that mentioned banning smoking in multi unit dwellings. The editor felt it would be better suited in Mein Kempf Part Deux.
I am not listening to anyone person. Carmona's claims are based on the EPA's 1993 study which contains the flaws I have noted. You two can keep cackling about sources all you like but you cannot change the fact that an interview is not a reliable basis for a study of this sort and you have not even bothered to challenge that. You just throw out ad homs.
And since you know the government is always the best source of information and science I am sure you will both agree with Petraeus and further the info given in the lead up to the war.
It's pretty well known that Hitler detested smoking.
I just posted an article pointing out the problems in the EPA that I already know about. Plenty of other info here. http://www.acsh.org/search/home_result.asp...
But hey they don't agree with the folks that told us Saddam had nukes, can't trust them.
But hey they don't agree with the folks that told us Saddam had nukes, can't trust them.
I don't doubt that throughout the history of second hand smoke studies there were studies on second hand smoke that were conducted unscientifically. However I referenced studies which referenced markers found in urine that are known carcinogens. Just because you can find some studies that may have been bogus doesn't discredit the facts and the general consensus in the medical community.
Secondly, its not just the surgeon general. Researchers outside the US gov't have come to the same conclusion. Again. I'll take their conclusions over yours and Gio's.
I just hope your children don't fall victim to your extreme libertarianism.
What? This Again?
Both the U.S. Surgeon General, and the World Health Organization have identified second hand smoke as a potential carcinogen.
Umm they are carcinogens, so what? Apparently you don't know that these carcinogens are found in eggplant. Better call the cops next the neighbor starts cooking some. There were no conclusions in these other studies concerning risks. This is why I asked about the levels of the markers found, what are normal levels for smokers, etc. Not much to go on their.
Carmona's comments are based on the EPA report of 1993 and that is not even disputed.
Both based on the 1993 EPA study which suffers the problems I mentioned. Try again, or maybe actually address the points presented.
Lady T:
US Environmental Protection Agency also identifies second hand smoke as a carcinogen:
I'm with you LadyT....I'm going with the experts.