Why do people deny science?

[Oddball]

you are putting up the sermon again, rather than the study.

They won't release the study.....Just the "findings".

Nope....Nothing fishy there!

 

[freedombecki]

you are putting up the sermon again, rather than the study.

They won't release the study.....Just the "findings".

Nope....Nothing fishy there!

That's because the current philosophy is "just pass, so we can know what it's all about later."

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm not asking you to believe smoking is harmless, I'm asking you to look at the results of the studies to check whether the findings support the hyperbolic rhetoric. in the case of the WHO study the results at best show inconclusive findings.



do I think children were protected from cancer by being exposed to SHS? no. but if the results were 1.22 CI(1.04-1.36) you would be screaming that it was proof positive.

and the CI for adults overlaps 1.0, meaning that SHS could either help or hurt the chances of getting cancer.

this is feeble evidence to be calling smokers environmental terrorists, let alone the people who just don't want to ostracize smokers.

WHAT? You don't want to ostracize smokers? Smokers have every right to smoke...just take it OUTSIDE. Every human has the right to breath clean, fresh air. Anyone who invades that right should be 'ostracized'

Second-hand smoke kills 600,000 a year: WHO study

Fri Nov 26, 2010

Around one in a hundred deaths worldwide is due to passive smoking, which kills an estimated 600,000 people a year, World Health Organization (WHO) researchers said on Friday.

In the first study to assess the global impact of second-hand smoke, WHO experts found that children are more heavily exposed to second-hand smoke than any other age-group, and around 165,000 of them a year die because of it.

"Two-thirds of these deaths occur in Africa and south Asia," the researchers, led by Annette Pruss-Ustun of the WHO in Geneva, wrote in their study.

Children's exposure to second-hand smoke is most likely to happen at home, and the double blow of infectious diseases and tobacco "seems to be a deadly combination for children in these regions," they said.

Commenting on the findings in the Lancet journal, Heather Wipfli and Jonathan Samet from the University of Southern California said policymakers try to motivate families to stop smoking in the home.

"In some countries, smokefree homes are becoming the norm, but far from universally," they wrote.

The WHO researchers looked at data from 192 countries for their study. To get comprehensive data from all 192, they had to go back to 2004. They used mathematical modeling to estimate deaths and the number of years lost of life in good health.

Worldwide, 40 percent of children, 33 percent of non-smoking men and 35 percent non-smoking women were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004, they found.

This exposure was estimated to have caused 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 from lower respiratory infections, 36,900 from asthma and 21,400 from lung cancer.

For the full impact of smoking, these deaths should be added to the estimated 5.1 million deaths a year attributable to active tobacco use, the researchers said.

CHILDREN

While deaths due to passive smoking in children were skewed toward poor and middle-income countries, deaths in adults were spread across countries at all income levels.

In Europe's high-income countries, only 71 child deaths occurred, while 35,388 deaths were in adults. Yet in the countries assessed in Africa, an estimated 43,375 deaths due to passive smoking were in children compared with 9,514 in adults.

more

Ahhh.....The old WHO report that was discovered to be a TOTAL FRAUD....Guess ole Gomer Pyle didn't get the memo.

...And They Call This "Science"!


Just as with Goebbels warming, the Euronannies at the UN had a conclusion they wanted to reach and made the "facts" fit the template.

REALLY Jethro? Goebbels? Shouldn't you be calling yourself out on Godwin's law? Can it get any more narcissistic, sick and evil than FORCE? Better find that Godwin pic, because this sounds like it goes beyond environmental terrorists.

To FORCES belong those who consider what follows unacceptable:

• The principle that public and private health - instead of general and individual liberty of choice, behaviour and enterprise - is the paramount value of society, to which any and all other values must submit.

• The ideological equation of health with liberty.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Truth About Secondhand Smoke

Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.


Introduction

In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.


The Evidence?

For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.

The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.

Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.

That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.

In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.

Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.

In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.

 

[SSDD]

8% to `50%? What sort of spread is that to base anything on? Random numbers would give you a tighter spread than that.

 

[Oddball]

WHAT? You don't want to ostracize smokers? Smokers have every right to smoke...just take it OUTSIDE. Every human has the right to breath clean, fresh air. Anyone who invades that right should be 'ostracized'

Second-hand smoke kills 600,000 a year: WHO study

Fri Nov 26, 2010

Around one in a hundred deaths worldwide is due to passive smoking, which kills an estimated 600,000 people a year, World Health Organization (WHO) researchers said on Friday.

In the first study to assess the global impact of second-hand smoke, WHO experts found that children are more heavily exposed to second-hand smoke than any other age-group, and around 165,000 of them a year die because of it.

"Two-thirds of these deaths occur in Africa and south Asia," the researchers, led by Annette Pruss-Ustun of the WHO in Geneva, wrote in their study.

Children's exposure to second-hand smoke is most likely to happen at home, and the double blow of infectious diseases and tobacco "seems to be a deadly combination for children in these regions," they said.

Commenting on the findings in the Lancet journal, Heather Wipfli and Jonathan Samet from the University of Southern California said policymakers try to motivate families to stop smoking in the home.

"In some countries, smokefree homes are becoming the norm, but far from universally," they wrote.

The WHO researchers looked at data from 192 countries for their study. To get comprehensive data from all 192, they had to go back to 2004. They used mathematical modeling to estimate deaths and the number of years lost of life in good health.

Worldwide, 40 percent of children, 33 percent of non-smoking men and 35 percent non-smoking women were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004, they found.

This exposure was estimated to have caused 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 from lower respiratory infections, 36,900 from asthma and 21,400 from lung cancer.

For the full impact of smoking, these deaths should be added to the estimated 5.1 million deaths a year attributable to active tobacco use, the researchers said.

CHILDREN

While deaths due to passive smoking in children were skewed toward poor and middle-income countries, deaths in adults were spread across countries at all income levels.

In Europe's high-income countries, only 71 child deaths occurred, while 35,388 deaths were in adults. Yet in the countries assessed in Africa, an estimated 43,375 deaths due to passive smoking were in children compared with 9,514 in adults.

more

Ahhh.....The old WHO report that was discovered to be a TOTAL FRAUD....Guess ole Gomer Pyle didn't get the memo.

...And They Call This "Science"!


Just as with Goebbels warming, the Euronannies at the UN had a conclusion they wanted to reach and made the "facts" fit the template.

REALLY Jethro? Goebbels? Shouldn't you be calling yourself out on Godwin's law? Can it get any more narcissistic, sick and evil than FORCE? Better find that Godwin pic, because this sounds like it goes beyond environmental terrorists.

To FORCES belong those who consider what follows unacceptable:

• The principle that public and private health - instead of general and individual liberty of choice, behaviour and enterprise - is the paramount value of society, to which any and all other values must submit.

• The ideological equation of health with liberty.

WHO fudged, contrived and outright lied, dumbshit.....That's a documented fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Truth About Secondhand Smoke

Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.


Introduction

In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.


The Evidence?

For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.

The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.

Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.

That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.

In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.

Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.

In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.

Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?

In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type...

My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11"..

So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what???

In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study,

......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years

And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...

I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Truth About Secondhand Smoke

Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.


Introduction

In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.


The Evidence?

For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.

The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.

Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.

That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.

In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.

Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.

In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.

Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?

In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type...

My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11"..

So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what???

In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study,

......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years

And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...

I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.

Link?

 

[Bfgrn]

The Tobacco Industry's Campaign

The tobacco industry foresaw the health debate over secondhand smoke, and the problems it would cause for cigarette makers. In 1978, a Roper poll commissioned by the Tobacco Institute, the industry's trade group, called growing public concern about secondhand smoke "the most dangerous development yet to the viability of the tobacco industry" and recommended "developing and widely publicizing clear-cut, credible medical evidence that passive smoking is not harmful."

In 1986, Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Canada's largest cigarette company, commissioned a secret study on how to combat the growing success of anti-smoking activists. The study documents, made public in the course of a lawsuit, lay out in prescient detail the industry's current strategy on secondhand smoke: "Passive smoking [should be] used as the focal point.... Of all the health issues surrounding smoking...the one which the tobacco industry has the most chance of winning [is] that the evidence proclaimed by the anti-group is flawed.... It is highly desirable to control the focus of the debate."

The study's documents go on to urge "an attack on the credibility of evidence presented to date." The ideal advocate would be a medical professional, the report said, but "the challenge will be to find a sympathetic doctor who can be demonstrated to take a largely independent stance." The recommended message on secondhand smoke: "Now that you have seen that all which has been said is not true, let's be adult and get down to the real business, a respect for each other's choices and space."

Whether or not tobacco companies ever saw the report, their current public-relations campaign is following its advice.

 

[Bfgrn]

Influencing Science

In its efforts to construct the sort of "credible medical evidence" its pollsters recommended, the tobacco industry has commissioned research from sympathetic scientists, sponsored scientific meetings carefully tailored to bring out their point of view, and published the results in the medical literature.

The research support comes through various channels: direct grants from companies or industry-funded research institutes -- such as the Council for Tobacco Research and the Center for Indoor Air Research) -- and consulting contracts from tobacco companies, public-relations firms, and law firms. To get favorable research on the record, the tobacco industry has borrowed a technique from the pharmaceutical industry: sponsoring scientific symposia and seeing to it that their findings end up on medical library shelves.

Lisa Bero, a health policy analyst at the University of California, San Francisco, has documented the results of such symposia. She identified four symposia between 1974 and 1990 that were paid for by the tobacco industry. Only 4 % of the articles from the industry-funded symposia said that passive smoking was unhealthful, compared with 65 % of the other journal articles. Fully 72 % of symposia reports argued that secondhand smoke wasn't harmful, compared with 20 % of independent journal articles. (The balance was neutral.)

The symposium reports did not undergo the standard scientific process of peer review, yet can be found in the databases of medical literature.

This careful construction of a citable scientific record came in handy when the tobacco industry set out to attack early drafts of the EPA's report on secondhand smoke. Bero found that two-thirds of comments critical of the EPA report came from industry scientists, who drew heavily on industry-generated literature. The Tobacco Institute's own submission, for instance, cited 32 papers from symposia, but only seven peer-reviewed articles.

As the industry has learned, however, research support doesn't guarantee that a scientist will go along with the company line. At least five members of an independent scientific advisory board that reviewed the EPA's 1993 secondhand smoke report had ties to industry research groups, either as advisers or grant recipients, including a scientist awarded a $1.2-million grant from Philip Morris during the review period. Yet the board unanimously agreed that passive smoking was a cancer risk.

 

[Oddball]

The tobacco industry didn't author the fraudulent WHO and EPA reports, Gomer.

 

[Bfgrn]

The tobacco industry didn't author the fraudulent WHO and EPA reports, Gomer.

Says the hired guns paid for by the tobacco industry. Did the butler you read what I posted Jethro? If he did, do you have a comprehension issue?

 

[Oddball]

Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.

You really suck at this, Gomer.

 

[Bfgrn]

Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.

You really suck at this, Gomer.

WHO someone is hired by is TOTALLY relevant, especially when the industry doing the hiring spells out in memos entered as evidence in a lawsuit they their intent was not science, or truth, their intention was to launch a PR campaign, and that they were looking for 'sympathetic doctors'.

Tobacco-industry funding of research

The tobacco industry's role in funding scientific research on second-hand smoke has been controversial. A review of published studies found that tobacco-industry affiliation was strongly correlated with findings exonerating second-hand smoke; researchers affiliated with the tobacco industry were 88 times more likely than independent researchers to conclude that second-hand was not harmful. In a specific example which came to light with the release of tobacco-industry documents, Philip Morris executives successfully encouraged an author to revise his industry-funded review article to downplay the role of second-hand smoke in sudden infant death syndrome. The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report criticized the tobacco industry's role in the scientific debate:

The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.

This strategy was outlined at an international meeting of tobacco companies in 1988, at which Philip Morris proposed to set up a team of scientists, organized by company lawyers, to "carry out work on ETS to keep the controversy alive." All scientific research was subject to oversight and "filtering" by tobacco-industry lawyers:

Philip Morris then expect the group of scientists to operate within the confines of decisions taken by PM scientists to determine the general direction of research, which apparently would then be 'filtered' by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity.

Philip Morris reported that it was putting "...vast amounts of funding into these projects... in attempting to coordinate and pay so many scientists on an international basis to keep the ETS controversy alive."

 

[flacaltenn]

The Truth About Secondhand Smoke

Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.


Introduction

In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.


The Evidence?

For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.

The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.

Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.

That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.

In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.

Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.

In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.

Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?

In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type...

My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11"..

So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what???

In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study,

......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years

And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...

I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.

Link?

The impact of reading the TRUTH about that study has stayed marked in my brain.. It inspires me to even spend time countering shills like you.. But it was too many years ago and before the internet for me to try to dig up..

Instead --- WHY don't you read the tagline in my footer again eh BullWinkle?

And then ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION about how accurate all your science can be if DOSE and EXPOSURE is completely unknown and uncontrolled.. Use what you have of your OWN brain and explain it to me.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?



Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type...

My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11"..

So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what???

In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study,

......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years

And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...

I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.

Link?

The impact of reading the TRUTH about that study has stayed marked in my brain.. It inspires me to even spend time countering shills like you.. But it was too many years ago and before the internet for me to try to dig up..

Instead --- WHY don't you read the tagline in my footer again eh BullWinkle?

And then ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION about how accurate all your science can be if DOSE and EXPOSURE is completely unknown and uncontrolled.. Use what you have of your OWN brain and explain it to me.

No links, just insults...

But you know, why would any reasonable person believe that secondhand smoke could be harmful? I mean, we know it is deadly to smokers, but it actually is helpful to the kid sitting next to him if you believe some of your 'expert' studies. And everyone knows if they ever bought a car from a smoker, that all that tar, nicotine, carcinogens and poisons know they are only allowed to go directly to the windows. They are not allowed to touch kids.

 

[Oddball]

Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.

You really suck at this, Gomer.

WHO someone is hired by is TOTALLY relevant, especially when the industry doing the hiring spells out in memos entered as evidence in a lawsuit they their intent was not science, or truth, their intention was to launch a PR campaign, and that they were looking for 'sympathetic doctors'.

Tobacco-industry funding of research

The tobacco industry's role in funding scientific research on second-hand smoke has been controversial. A review of published studies found that tobacco-industry affiliation was strongly correlated with findings exonerating second-hand smoke; researchers affiliated with the tobacco industry were 88 times more likely than independent researchers to conclude that second-hand was not harmful. In a specific example which came to light with the release of tobacco-industry documents, Philip Morris executives successfully encouraged an author to revise his industry-funded review article to downplay the role of second-hand smoke in sudden infant death syndrome. The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report criticized the tobacco industry's role in the scientific debate:

The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.

This strategy was outlined at an international meeting of tobacco companies in 1988, at which Philip Morris proposed to set up a team of scientists, organized by company lawyers, to "carry out work on ETS to keep the controversy alive." All scientific research was subject to oversight and "filtering" by tobacco-industry lawyers:

Philip Morris then expect the group of scientists to operate within the confines of decisions taken by PM scientists to determine the general direction of research, which apparently would then be 'filtered' by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity.

Philip Morris reported that it was putting "...vast amounts of funding into these projects... in attempting to coordinate and pay so many scientists on an international basis to keep the ETS controversy alive."

Recriminations and a text brick written by someone else still doesn't refute the fact that WHO and EPA lied out their asses.

You really, really suck at this, Gomer.

 

[Trajan]

The Truth About Secondhand Smoke

Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.


Introduction

In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.


The Evidence?

For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.

The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.

Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.

That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.

In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.

Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.

In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.

Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?

In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type...

My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11"..

So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what???

In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study,

......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years

And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...

I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.

its the old Alar scare type play- you'd have to eat a bushel of 'Alar" sprayed apples a week for 20 years to begin to reach levels of toxicity build up etc etc ...

 

[SSDD]

No links, just insults...

ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION about how accurate all your science can be if DOSE and EXPOSURE is completely unknown and uncontrolled

That seemed like a reasonable question. Got an answer? I would be real interested in hearing how any sort of rational scientific position could be reached with those two critical variables remaining unknown. So what is the answer?

 

[flacaltenn]

No links, just insults...

ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION about how accurate all your science can be if DOSE and EXPOSURE is completely unknown and uncontrolled

That seemed like a reasonable question. Got an answer? I would be real interested in hearing how any sort of rational scientific position could be reached with those two critical variables remaining unknown. So what is the answer?

Geez yeah.. The thread is about denying SCIENCE, not denying smoking.. Seems appropriate...