Vox
Gold Member
- Jun 17, 2013
- 10,937
- 869
- 138
I knew who paid for it....but I'll give his research the same respect as I would any other that conforms to my experience.
Calm down, and review the report in terms of this, from the Washington Post:
"… It has been fashionable to ignorethe weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, [/B]perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “
Your fears are bogus.
there is no weakness in the scientifically proven second hand smoke harm - even in this bogus, tobacco-industry paid "study".
It also has shown that second hand smoke is the cause of COPD, asthma and lung cancer.
did you read the study?
you, obviously, did not, because you cite Washington Post instead of the study itself.
It DID prove that second hand smoke in the house where one spouse smokes IN THE HOUSE ( and that is the point - who needs the "study" if there is no second hand smoke as the smoker smokes outside the house) and for the long enough time - it is invariably the cause of the lung cancer of the second hand smoker.
Asthma and COPD are induced even at the lighter exposure.
That is what the study says itself.
Not the media sensationalizatipn about it.
Puh-leeezzzze......
1. "....a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer."
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ
2. From the WaPo article:
"Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible,...."
im·pos·si·ble (m-ps-bl)
adj.
1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.
2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.
impossible - definition of impossible by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Get it?
It's a GUESS!
Not science.
repeating - I could not care less about the MEDIA article.
did you actually read the STUDY ( even if bogus)?
It did prove the second hand smoke cause 1) lung cancer 2) COPD and asthma.
so stop quoting media sensations - it did not happen.
Second hand smoke is as harmful as ever
PLUS - do you understand the difference between MORTALITY and MORBIDITY?
because the study is talking about mortality, it never disputes morbidity.
the media sensationalization idiots obviously do not understand the difference
Conclusion
The results of the California CPS I cohort do not support a causal relation between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. Given the limitations of the underlying data in this and the other studies of ...
.
Last edited: