Do Only 6% Understand Science?

[Vox]

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 ...

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 ...

.

Gee....you must be correct if your font is larger and darker than mine.




How about you do what I suggested earlier and simply move away from the offending citizen?
You know, pretend you're autonomous and can function without government bans.


To review....there is no way to gauge how much second-hand smoke anyone is exposed to....it's all about self-reporting......notoriously inaccurate.

And....the idea that standing in the park you are imposed upon by a smoker is insane.


Now, calm down and learn to think for yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And, I'm proven correct once again (ad infinitum)....

The 'second-hand smoke' fraud is very much like the 'global warming scam'....fake science designed to make big government and over regulation an imperative.


"We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans
....comprehensive smoking bans have proliferated globally. And now that the evidence has had time to accumulate, it’s also become clear that the extravagant promises made by anti-smoking groups—that implementing bans would bring about extraordinary improvements in cardiac health—never materialized. Newer, better studies with much larger sample sizes have found little to no correlation between smoking bans and short-term incidence of heart attacks, and certainly nothing remotely close to the 60 percent reduction that was claimed..."
Secondhand Smoke Is Not Nearly As Dangerous As We Thought. Shouldn’t That Matter?



Trump was right!
I'm getting tired of winning!