Why do people deny science?

[Circe]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"

The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of “infection by humans.”...

... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on “global warming” instead of on the bigger concern—that we are disrupting the planet’s climate in completely unpredictable ways.

The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.

Excellent. I'll look for that book directly, in the hope that it does indeed concentrate on overpopulation, not the discredited "Ice Age Coming" in the '70s or "Global Warming" a la Fantasia with the dinosaurs dying of heat prostration. How "science" follows art.

Luddly, you may be the first poster after me who has started chucking out the global warming nonsense in favor of the actual danger: overpopulation. I have realized for YEARS that leftists dealt in global warming as a way to talk about overpopulation without actually mentioning it, because of course it's a racial issue: whites are declining in population, it's yellows and blacks and browns that are grossly overpopulating the world now. (Though whites had our hockey-stick time, too.) So leftists could not possibly talk about it, and went a wrong direction, and tried to somehow blame a falsified "global warming" on Bush and Republican Americans, which was all such incredible nonsense that it failed as a meme, finally.

I know it has by now conclusively failed because I just visited leftist relatives in Boston and not a single word was spoken on global warming, despite past enthusiasm and total faith expressed about that silly idea.

Here's a book for you: Spillover, by David Quammen. He is speaking of pandemics but makes an excellent case for humans being one of the few mammals that has had a true "outbreak" like disease outbreaks and pests, like gypsy moths and such do, increasing population by several factors very fast. Lemmings, of course, do have outbreaks, but other than that, mammals generally do not. Too large and reproductively slow. But humans certainly have!! Look at the hockey stick graphs. We are going to eat up the world and a whole lot of other species, and many are gone already.

 

[dilloduck]

But now science can make new everything with these cool new machines . Completely safe and no downsides whatsoever

3-D printing goes from sci-fi fantasy to reality

 

[Circe]

Luddly, I see that book comes out tomorrow. I did send for it. [

I am hoping it's one of those blow-up-your-mind books like Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" or the Reverend Malthus's "Essay on the Principles of Population."

 

[dilloduck]

Unfortunately closed minds can't be blown

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.

And there ya go.. Denial of scientific process for means of advancing an agenda.. Just as I pointed out above...

Where's the public concern about legitimizing marijuana smoking. Do we have a similiar "any dose is harmful" concern from the left? Reminds me of very good friends in Cali who had "No Smoking" signs in every room of their house.. But were the biggest pot-heads in my circle of friends.

I do know that 2nd hand dope smoking IS a real problem in a tiny dorm room...

 

[Circe]

Unfortunately closed minds can't be blown

Was that a gratuitous insult against me, or against someone else?

I couldn't tell. Always nice to know where the snark is aimed.

 

[IanC]

Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not cause cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.

That smoking increases the risk ≠ a causal pathogen.

The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.

its been a long time since I looked into tobacco/illness. there were several long term, high number studies that showed very peculiar results. one showed worse mortality for people that quit. these were not tobacco funded studies, they were govt studies that had every reason to find smoking (heh) gun results. it didnt stop them from making extravegant claims though, for our own good of course. second hand smoke danger is a complete fabrication and that is where people like Lindzen came in, to dispute the science not to support smoking in any way.

kinda sounds like AGW doesnt it? if it sounds good, lets run with it even if it isnt scientifically valid.

Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand smoke causes cancer

Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.

SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.

Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for:

• An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers

• About 3,400 nonsmoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing SHS

• Worse asthma and asthma -related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children

• Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age, and lung infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year

Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health

Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon General’s reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports continues to support the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented. The reports have highlighted many important findings on SHS, such as:

• SHS kills children and adults who don’t smoke.

• SHS causes disease in children and in adults who don’t smoke.

• Exposure to SHS while pregnant increases the chance that a woman will have a spontaneous abortion, still-born birth, low birth- weight baby, and other pregnancy and delivery problems.

• Chemicals in tobacco smoke damage sperm which might reduce fertility and harm fetal development. SHS is known to damage sperm in animals, but more studies are needed to find out its effects in humans.

• Babies and children exposed to SHS are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear infections, and more severe and frequent asthma attacks.

• Smoking by parents can cause wheezing, coughing, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and slow lung growth in their children.

• SHS immediately affects the heart, blood vessels, and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over time it can cause heart disease, strokes, and heart attacks.

• SHS causes lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Even brief exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.

• There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.

• Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to SHS in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control.

• On average, children are exposed to more SHS than non-smoking adults.

• The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to SHS.

Secondhand Smoke

sermons aren't studies. the numbers for SHS correlations are smaller than the error bars.

 

[westwall]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"

The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of “infection by humans.”...

... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on “global warming” instead of on the bigger concern—that we are disrupting the planet’s climate in completely unpredictable ways.

The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.

Excellent. I'll look for that book directly, in the hope that it does indeed concentrate on overpopulation, not the discredited "Ice Age Coming" in the '70s or "Global Warming" a la Fantasia with the dinosaurs dying of heat prostration. How "science" follows art.

Luddly, you may be the first poster after me who has started chucking out the global warming nonsense in favor of the actual danger: overpopulation. I have realized for YEARS that leftists dealt in global warming as a way to talk about overpopulation without actually mentioning it, because of course it's a racial issue: whites are declining in population, it's yellows and blacks and browns that are grossly overpopulating the world now. (Though whites had our hockey-stick time, too.) So leftists could not possibly talk about it, and went a wrong direction, and tried to somehow blame a falsified "global warming" on Bush and Republican Americans, which was all such incredible nonsense that it failed as a meme, finally.

I know it has by now conclusively failed because I just visited leftist relatives in Boston and not a single word was spoken on global warming, despite past enthusiasm and total faith expressed about that silly idea.

Here's a book for you: Spillover, by David Quammen. He is speaking of pandemics but makes an excellent case for humans being one of the few mammals that has had a true "outbreak" like disease outbreaks and pests, like gypsy moths and such do, increasing population by several factors very fast. Lemmings, of course, do have outbreaks, but other than that, mammals generally do not. Too large and reproductively slow. But humans certainly have!! Look at the hockey stick graphs. We are going to eat up the world and a whole lot of other species, and many are gone already.

You need not worry about overpopulation. The population (unless we're hit by an asteroid, or have a major war or pandemic) will level off at around 10 billion in 25 years or so. Then, the population will begin to decline as the various third world countries become richer.

Of course that assumes that liberal enviro loons don't kill off a bunch more before that. Or regulate perpetual poverty like they wish to do with Africa.

 

[Bfgrn]

its been a long time since I looked into tobacco/illness. there were several long term, high number studies that showed very peculiar results. one showed worse mortality for people that quit. these were not tobacco funded studies, they were govt studies that had every reason to find smoking (heh) gun results. it didnt stop them from making extravegant claims though, for our own good of course. second hand smoke danger is a complete fabrication and that is where people like Lindzen came in, to dispute the science not to support smoking in any way.

kinda sounds like AGW doesnt it? if it sounds good, lets run with it even if it isnt scientifically valid.

Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand smoke causes cancer

Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.

SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.

Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for:

• An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers

• About 3,400 nonsmoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing SHS

• Worse asthma and asthma -related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children

• Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age, and lung infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year

Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health

Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon General’s reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports continues to support the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented. The reports have highlighted many important findings on SHS, such as:

• SHS kills children and adults who don’t smoke.

• SHS causes disease in children and in adults who don’t smoke.

• Exposure to SHS while pregnant increases the chance that a woman will have a spontaneous abortion, still-born birth, low birth- weight baby, and other pregnancy and delivery problems.

• Chemicals in tobacco smoke damage sperm which might reduce fertility and harm fetal development. SHS is known to damage sperm in animals, but more studies are needed to find out its effects in humans.

• Babies and children exposed to SHS are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear infections, and more severe and frequent asthma attacks.

• Smoking by parents can cause wheezing, coughing, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and slow lung growth in their children.

• SHS immediately affects the heart, blood vessels, and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over time it can cause heart disease, strokes, and heart attacks.

• SHS causes lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Even brief exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.

• There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.

• Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to SHS in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control.

• On average, children are exposed to more SHS than non-smoking adults.

• The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to SHS.

Secondhand Smoke

sermons aren't studies. the numbers for SHS correlations are smaller than the error bars.

Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

 

[IanC]

Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand smoke causes cancer

Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.

SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.

Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for:

• An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers

• About 3,400 nonsmoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing SHS

• Worse asthma and asthma -related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children

• Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age, and lung infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year

Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health

Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon General’s reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports continues to support the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented. The reports have highlighted many important findings on SHS, such as:

• SHS kills children and adults who don’t smoke.

• SHS causes disease in children and in adults who don’t smoke.

• Exposure to SHS while pregnant increases the chance that a woman will have a spontaneous abortion, still-born birth, low birth- weight baby, and other pregnancy and delivery problems.

• Chemicals in tobacco smoke damage sperm which might reduce fertility and harm fetal development. SHS is known to damage sperm in animals, but more studies are needed to find out its effects in humans.

• Babies and children exposed to SHS are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear infections, and more severe and frequent asthma attacks.

• Smoking by parents can cause wheezing, coughing, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and slow lung growth in their children.

• SHS immediately affects the heart, blood vessels, and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over time it can cause heart disease, strokes, and heart attacks.

• SHS causes lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Even brief exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.

• There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.

• Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to SHS in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control.

• On average, children are exposed to more SHS than non-smoking adults.

• The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to SHS.

Secondhand Smoke

sermons aren't studies. the numbers for SHS correlations are smaller than the error bars.

Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

I actually consider myself as a classical liberal but I must admit that as the years mount up I find that I have less and less patience for ignorant ideas that no chance of being successful.

let's put aside SHS because it has too much political baggage. how about cell phones causing brain cancer? there is no possible physical mechanism for it but there have been many 'studies' that found a positive correlation in general. but more studies that found no correlation, especially if they were designed to find that specific correlation. any study will find spurious correlations, at the significant level no less, if they look at enough factors. any factor will find spurious correlations if they look at enough studies. publication bias seeps into the media and we all hear the latest fad paper. playing classical music to your unborn baby will make it smarter, or a glass of red wine a day will make you healthier, etc.

some ideas are so attractive that we will believe them no matter how much evidence is against them. other ideas are so abhorrent that we will never accept them even if the evidence supports them.

too many people accept things because they sound good and stop using their critical thinking skills. are cookies more dangerous than second hand smoke? we hate smoking and love cookies. ponder that a while.

 

[skookerasbil]

Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand smoke causes cancer

Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.

SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.

Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for:

• An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers

• About 3,400 nonsmoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing SHS

• Worse asthma and asthma -related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children

• Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age, and lung infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year

Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health

Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon General’s reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports continues to support the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented. The reports have highlighted many important findings on SHS, such as:

• SHS kills children and adults who don’t smoke.

• SHS causes disease in children and in adults who don’t smoke.

• Exposure to SHS while pregnant increases the chance that a woman will have a spontaneous abortion, still-born birth, low birth- weight baby, and other pregnancy and delivery problems.

• Chemicals in tobacco smoke damage sperm which might reduce fertility and harm fetal development. SHS is known to damage sperm in animals, but more studies are needed to find out its effects in humans.

• Babies and children exposed to SHS are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear infections, and more severe and frequent asthma attacks.

• Smoking by parents can cause wheezing, coughing, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and slow lung growth in their children.

• SHS immediately affects the heart, blood vessels, and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over time it can cause heart disease, strokes, and heart attacks.

• SHS causes lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Even brief exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.

• There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.

• Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to SHS in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control.

• On average, children are exposed to more SHS than non-smoking adults.

• The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to SHS.

Secondhand Smoke

sermons aren't studies. the numbers for SHS correlations are smaller than the error bars.

Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

When people say, "People on the left cant think on the margin." this ^^^ is exactly what they are talking about


Listening to lefty k00ks, you'd think we were back in the early 1970's with the Love Canal!!!! They all read too much Rousseau in college and got developmentally stuck.......they want us all to live in a bubble like they do. The world is horribly tragic to these people and to them, people who dont think exactly as they do are the sole cause. All have the political IQ of a small soap dish, as evidenced by their continuous obsession with this global warming/green energy crap......as if it is actually something more than a fad. They'd have zero problem putting 2.5 million people in the coal industry out of work if they could......"FUCK THEM!!". They want us opening up our wallet and forking over twice as much for our electricity as we do now, "FUCK THEM......more carbon taxes!!!". They'd close your fireplace and steal your Galaxy Phone in a heartbeat ( can exist without fossil fuels).......'FUCK YOU.......we need nothing less than a lilly white environment......put out that cigarette you fuck!!!". They want ALL OF US driving around in those little faggy SMARTCARS because "I care more about the environment than you do!!!!"


Make no mistake.......these are the most intelorant people on the face of the earth.......and they are mental cases.

 

[skookerasbil]

PS.....second hand smoke causing cancer is a gigantic myth pushed by lefty k00ks.

But dont take my word for it........thats what a WHO study found ( WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION )

The WHO's First Study on Second Hand Smoke





k00k lefties always push the data that fits their narrative.

 

[Bfgrn]

sermons aren't studies. the numbers for SHS correlations are smaller than the error bars.

Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

I actually consider myself as a classical liberal but I must admit that as the years mount up I find that I have less and less patience for ignorant ideas that no chance of being successful.

let's put aside SHS because it has too much political baggage. how about cell phones causing brain cancer? there is no possible physical mechanism for it but there have been many 'studies' that found a positive correlation in general. but more studies that found no correlation, especially if they were designed to find that specific correlation. any study will find spurious correlations, at the significant level no less, if they look at enough factors. any factor will find spurious correlations if they look at enough studies. publication bias seeps into the media and we all hear the latest fad paper. playing classical music to your unborn baby will make it smarter, or a glass of red wine a day will make you healthier, etc.

some ideas are so attractive that we will believe them no matter how much evidence is against them. other ideas are so abhorrent that we will never accept them even if the evidence supports them.

too many people accept things because they sound good and stop using their critical thinking skills. are cookies more dangerous than second hand smoke? we hate smoking and love cookies. ponder that a while.

The only 'sermons' are coming from you and kooks like skookerasbil. No evidence, sources or studies. Why is that? Is it because you are protecting your beloved hierarchy, the 'captains of industry' and parroting the propaganda of the tobacco industry and the pseudo 'scientists' and 'think' tanks who were hired guns for the tobacco industry and now the SAME pseudo 'scientists' and 'think' tanks who were hired guns for big polluters to create 'doubt' about climate change so they can rake in as much money as possible while killing human, fish and foul.

And PLEASE, don't even use the word 'liberal', you are a right wing environmental terrorist. There is not a liberal bone in your body.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[Bfgrn]

PS.....second hand smoke causing cancer is a gigantic myth pushed by lefty k00ks.

But dont take my word for it........thats what a WHO study found ( WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION )

The WHO's First Study on Second Hand Smoke





k00k lefties always push the data that fits their narrative.

Hey pea brain, do you even check your own sources?

At the bottom of the page YOU posted:

More Information

The WHO's press release is located here.

p'wned...

 

[IanC]

PS.....second hand smoke causing cancer is a gigantic myth pushed by lefty k00ks.

But dont take my word for it........thats what a WHO study found ( WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION )

The WHO's First Study on Second Hand Smoke





k00k lefties always push the data that fits their narrative.

Hey pea brain, do you even check your own sources?

At the bottom of the page YOU posted:

More Information

The WHO's press release is located here.

p'wned...

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.

RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

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.

 

[Circe]

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

I like this quote. I never heard that one. Probably true. It's true of me, anyway: I assume a natural hierarchy, though I do believe in equality under the law.

 

[Bfgrn]

PS.....second hand smoke causing cancer is a gigantic myth pushed by lefty k00ks.

But dont take my word for it........thats what a WHO study found ( WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION )

The WHO's First Study on Second Hand Smoke





k00k lefties always push the data that fits their narrative.

Hey pea brain, do you even check your own sources?

At the bottom of the page YOU posted:

More Information

The WHO's press release is located here.

p'wned...

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.

RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

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

 

[IanC]

Hey pea brain, do you even check your own sources?

At the bottom of the page YOU posted:

More Information

The WHO's press release is located here.

p'wned...

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.

RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

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

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

They used mathematical modeling to estimate deaths

here we go again with modelling.

 

[Circe]

here we go again with modelling.

Yeah, that modeling is how they got in trouble with the global warming crap. Modeling is not science! It's free creation; it's science fiction. It's an attempt to put somebody's bias over on a naive public, and it's immoral.

 

[Oddball]

Hey pea brain, do you even check your own sources?

At the bottom of the page YOU posted:

More Information

The WHO's press release is located here.

p'wned...

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.

RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

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.