The Need for a Good Puff of Skepticism

Timshel

New member
Read this in Skeptic this month.

Full article here in pdf.
http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.PDF

List of sources are here.
http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.html

THERE IS NOTHING MORE POWERFULL THAN A lie whose time has come. Thus, the smoking bans. The experts proclaim that 63,000 Americans are killed yearly by secondhand smoke, more than the victims of AIDS, drunk drivers, the Iraq war, and Hurricane Katrina, put together. If it's true here, imagine the death toll in China. One would think such a strong assertion would be followed by demands for strong evidence by the scientific establishment, the medical community, the media and the man in the street.
Instead, with very few exceptions, scientists and doctors have remained silent, the media have led the orchestra, and the citizens have waltzed to
the music.

But the claims about the deleterious effects of second hand smoke are based on nothing more than cooked statistics--there are no bodies, no autopsy reports. But they have led to draconian smoking bans imposed by govemments from Califomia to New York to Ireland to Israel to Australia to England. ln the process, civil liberties have been trampled and smokers demonized, driven into the streets and lately, in some places, off the streets as anti-smoke zealots promote the notion that outdoor smoking is virtually as pernicious as indoor smoking.
 
Last edited:
yeah and in KY the county health departments are rulling on smoking or not on a county by county basis....RP people should love this, county rights :clink:

I read their letter in a local paper last week it is scary as heck. One statement said one puff of second smoke (SHS) , would cause cancer.
 
Harriet Hall, M.D. wrote a rebuttal saying...

"Sidney Zion is right about one thing: anti-smoking activists have overstated the evidence against secondhand smoke. ... Hysterical anti-smoking activists have gone overboard, using this uncertainty [about whether there is a threshold below which secondhand smoke is absolutely innocuous] alone to support their demands for total bans. ... Common sense tells us that a low level of exposure is innocuous enough for practical purposes. Common sense tells us that judges should not be taking children away from parents just because the parents smoke."

She basically argued that the effects are not nothing and that Zion may be understating them. But she agreed the effects were wildly exaggerated.

The science behind the second hand smoke movement is bogus horseshit.
 
Back
Top