Passive smoking no increased lung cancer risk

[Noomi]

Noomi, what's the bigger threat to society? Smoking in bars or the consequences of drinking in bars? Which is banned?

Smoking affects non smokers. There is no such thing as passive drinking.

 

[novasteve]

Noomi, what's the bigger threat to society? Smoking in bars or the consequences of drinking in bars? Which is banned?

Smoking affects non smokers. There is no such thing as passive drinking.

Tell that to victims of drunken abusers and people on the road killed by drink drivers.

 

[eflatminor]

Myth

American Cancer Society says differently

Yeah because they aren't biased at all

I'll go with the American Cancer Society over rightwing propaganda

Sorry....it's just me

Tell us, EXACTLY PLEASE, how the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the evaluation was presented, and the Women’s Health Initiative database, from which the study of smoking and passive smoking for 76,304 participants was derived, is "rightwing".

Please...the floor is yours.

 

[eflatminor]

If you don't believe that passive smoking is just as dangerous as smoking, you are an idiot.

If you believe that it is, you are an idiot

My nana never smoked, yet her lungs are stuffed - why? Because my grandpop smoked inside. Her lungs are damaged as a result of years of passive smoking.

Go fuck yourself.

Hey, genius, maybe you can tell us exactly how those that presented the study at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, derived from and the Women’s Health Initiative database, are "idiots".

I mean, they only drew from just over 76,000 test examples...but you have your nana...

You were saying something about being an idiot???

 

[editec]

I have long suspected that the second hand smoke threat was wildly overstated.

It was done, I suspect, as a cover for the real cultprit...internal engine pollution/

 

[rightwinger]

Seems every ten years or so we get another one of these studies funded by the tobacco industry finding no linkage between second hand smoking and cancer.

Convince the Surgeon General, American Cancer Society and World Health Organization and I'll start to pay attention

 

[novasteve]

Are you illiterate? It's about second hand smoke . Nobody denies it causes cancer in some smokers. But the claim second hand smoke causes cancer is a fraud by people with an agenda

 

[Peterf]

If you don't believe that passive smoking is just as dangerous as smoking, you are an idiot.

Is there a word for people who consider that anyone who does not share each and every one of their opinions is an idiot? Surely there must be one in the rich vernacular of Strine?

 

[novasteve]

She's a bigot. The nicotine nazis will perpetrate a fraud and stop at nothing to ban things they don't approve of

 

[eflatminor]

Seems every ten years or so we get another one of these studies funded by the tobacco industry finding no linkage between second hand smoking and cancer.

You have a link to prove that this particular study is "funded by the tobacco industry"?

Didn't think so.

 

[eflatminor]

Yeah because they aren't biased at all

I'll go with the American Cancer Society over rightwing propaganda

Sorry....it's just me

Tell us, EXACTLY PLEASE, how the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the evaluation was presented, and the Women’s Health Initiative database, from which the study of smoking and passive smoking for 76,304 participants was derived, is "rightwing".

Please...the floor is yours.

So you got nothing.

Color me shocked...

 

[novasteve]

They need to lie to further their agendas.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll go with the American Cancer Society over rightwing propaganda

Sorry....it's just me

Tell us, EXACTLY PLEASE, how the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the evaluation was presented, and the Women’s Health Initiative database, from which the study of smoking and passive smoking for 76,304 participants was derived, is "rightwing".

Please...the floor is yours.

So you got nothing.

Color me shocked...

Oh.....you somehow thought that is worthy of a response?

Explain the dfference between a study presented AT the American Society of Clinical Oncology and one ENDORSED by that society
Databases are cool.....you get to pick out the data you like and ignore what you dont
I have seen these studies sponsored by the tobacco industry my whole life......they are best ignored

 

[rightwinger]

Seems every ten years or so we get another one of these studies funded by the tobacco industry finding no linkage between second hand smoking and cancer.

You have a link to prove that this particular study is "funded by the tobacco industry"?

Didn't think so.

Scratch a study claiming no link between smoking and cancer.....find the tobacco industry

 

[eflatminor]

Tell us, EXACTLY PLEASE, how the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the evaluation was presented, and the Women’s Health Initiative database, from which the study of smoking and passive smoking for 76,304 participants was derived, is "rightwing".

Please...the floor is yours.

So you got nothing.

Color me shocked...

Oh.....you somehow thought that is worthy of a response?

Explain the dfference between a study presented AT the American Society of Clinical Oncology and one ENDORSED by that society
Databases are cool.....you get to pick out the data you like and ignore what you dont
I have seen these studies sponsored by the tobacco industry my whole life......they are best ignored

Still looking for that "rightwing" connection. And that proof of tobacco industry involvement???

So you still got nothing. Shocking I tell you, shocking!

 

[novasteve]

He's such a bigot he canny question what he's been parroting for years

 

[eflatminor]

Seems every ten years or so we get another one of these studies funded by the tobacco industry finding no linkage between second hand smoking and cancer.

You have a link to prove that this particular study is "funded by the tobacco industry"?

Didn't think so.

Scratch a study claiming no link between smoking and cancer.....find the tobacco industry

Then it ought to be easy for you to provide even a modicum of proof.

The floor is still yours.

 

[Dot Com]

Passive smoking: have the risks been overstated? - Health News | Irish Medical News | The Irish Times - Thu, Jan 02, 2014

But they still want it banned because they don't approve. How is that not bigotry?

"Irish times"? Let me guess, a Drudge link. I don't see novasteve "finding" that on his/her own

From your link pissant:

This study is not yet published in the peer-reviewed literature, and the conclusions noted above might be modified somewhat in the review process.

 

[rightwinger]

You have a link to prove that this particular study is "funded by the tobacco industry"?

Didn't think so.

Scratch a study claiming no link between smoking and cancer.....find the tobacco industry

Then it ought to be easy for you to provide even a modicum of proof.

The floor is still yours.

Let's be serious

Why can't you guys post a serious report on the study instead of a rightwing blog proclaiming "See? There is NO link to cancer"

I will take you seriously when you begin to post full reports rather than cherry picked propaganda

Like I said, when this study starts to get attention from the American Cancer Society or Surgeon General, I will take you seriously

Until then, I will just mock you

 

[R.D.]

Noomi, what's the bigger threat to society? Smoking in bars or the consequences of drinking in bars? Which is banned?

Smoking affects non smokers. There is no such thing as passive drinking.

You sure?
https://www.google.com/search?q=passive+drinking&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari