I never liked people smoking in restaurants, even when I used to smoke. Find it hard to appreciate the food. Which is why I liked restaurants with smoking and non smoking areas.
Politics and Secondhand Smoke
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
I never liked people smoking in restaurants, even when I used to smoke. Find it hard to appreciate the food. Which is why I liked restaurants with smoking and non smoking areas.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Yea, that way only the employee's rights are violated.
Employees that object can work in the non smoking area.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,951
- 79,424
- 2,645
Awesome
I don't even feel bad that you picked on the Old "Special Ed" Rocks
What if you blew second hand smoke in a NASA clean room? or in a Level IV BioContainment facility!
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
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
Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon GeneralÂ’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 donÂ’t smoke.
- SHS causes disease in children and in adults who donÂ’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
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
Surgeon GeneralÂ’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health
- 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
Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon GeneralÂ’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 donÂ’t smoke.
- SHS causes disease in children and in adults who donÂ’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
OK, you've cut and pasted a load of stuff from the American Cancer Society. Great.
Now, let me remind you of the point.
There's nothing in your post that addresses this, unless you're saying that the figure of 46,000 deaths a year (and all the other numbers) is above question because it comes from the American Cancer Society's website.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
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
Surgeon GeneralÂ’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health
- 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
Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon GeneralÂ’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 donÂ’t smoke.
- SHS causes disease in children and in adults who donÂ’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
OK, you've cut and pasted a load of stuff from the American Cancer Society. Great.
Now, let me remind you of the point.
There's nothing in your post that addresses this, unless you're saying that the figure of 46,000 deaths a year (and all the other numbers) is above question because it comes from the American Cancer Society's website.
It HAS been established. Let me remind you of my first post in response to PC's bullshit.
One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke
OMG, a scientist working for Philip Morris tobacco company disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke?
In 1999 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a massive lawsuit against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers alleging that the companies had collaborated in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke. In August 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the companies. The court's Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study, and describes how the American Cancer Society had repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its CPS-I data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The court's Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the companies' conspiratorial enterprise against the American public.
Irony, the tittle PC unwittingly chose is perfect, AGAINST her case.
Here are the 'politics'...
U.S. cigarette manufacturers collaborated in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke.
They were protecting their billion dollar industry profits, NOT protecting the American people.
The FACT they continue to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke is not shocking. What IS shocking is how gullible people like PC are.
If you want to become a truly informed citizen, you will research the FACT that the SAME strategy, the SAME think tanks, and in many cases the SAME 'scientists' are doing the SAME collaboration in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about climate change.
Climate skeptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain
The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.
What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain | Jeffrey Sachs | Environment | guardian.co.uk
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
Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health
- 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
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
OK, you've cut and pasted a load of stuff from the American Cancer Society. Great.
Now, let me remind you of the point.
There's nothing in your post that addresses this, unless you're saying that the figure of 46,000 deaths a year (and all the other numbers) is above question because it comes from the American Cancer Society's website.
It HAS been established. Let me remind you of my first post in response to PC's bullshit.
One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke
OMG, a scientist working for Philip Morris tobacco company disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke?
In 1999 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a massive lawsuit against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers alleging that the companies had collaborated in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke. In August 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the companies. The court's Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study, and describes how the American Cancer Society had repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its CPS-I data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The court's Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the companies' conspiratorial enterprise against the American public.
Irony, the tittle PC unwittingly chose is perfect, AGAINST her case.
Here are the 'politics'...
U.S. cigarette manufacturers collaborated in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke.
They were protecting their billion dollar industry profits, NOT protecting the American people.
The FACT they continue to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke is not shocking. What IS shocking is how gullible people like PC are.
If you want to become a truly informed citizen, you will research the FACT that the SAME strategy, the SAME think tanks, and in many cases the SAME 'scientists' are doing the SAME collaboration in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about climate change.
Climate skeptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain
The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.
What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain | Jeffrey Sachs | Environment | guardian.co.uk
OK, well. We've still not made much progress here, have we?
I'm going to ignore everything you mention about climate science, because it's irrelevant to the discussion. If you choose to say again how it is relevant i will continue to ignore it. Let's concentrate on the central issue. The science at the heart of this specific issue.
I do not dispute that the tobacco companies will try to protect their industry. Nor do I dispute that they misled about the affects of primary smoking. Nor do I dispute that there is clear evidence between primary smoke and Tobacco Related Disease (TRD). Nor do I dispute that the industry will try to ensure that their POV is put in front of scientists who are doing research in this area in an attempt to persuade that perhaps certain findings might be viewed in a different light.
As to your observation about "becoming a truly informed citizen", I've been highly familiar with this issue for well over a decade. I know more about it than anyone on this board, unless some posters are tobacco scientists or statisticians who have made a specific and years-long study of the raw data behind the reports.
I'm pretty familiar with what Hoffman analytes are. I know about tobacco specific nitrosamines. I have a relatively detailed understanding of the differences produced by different types of leaf, paper, acetate, combustion, crush, and flavorings. And I know that anyone who says that "tobacco science is not rocket science" is vastly underestimating the complexity of tobacco science. Some of the best brains in the world have worked on the issue of ETS (by which I mean Environmental Tobacco Smoke, which is the accepted scientific name for Second Hand Smoke) for decades, so anyone who says it is simple is themselves a bit simple or is willingly oversimplifying the issue to suit their agenda. I don't mean to come across as pompous, but I just mean to point out that I really, REALLY, do know what I'm talking about. Not through links, or newspapers, but through detailed review of the science over many, many years.
Nothing you have said thus far even remotely demonstrates a clear causal link. If you chose to, you could go and find statistics that do show causality. They are out there. And equally, there are those that show nothing.
The question you ought to be asking yourself is "how do I know which to believe and which to dismiss?"
I suspect you have never asked this question. However, you do say that PC is gullible.
Now, I'm not going to defend PC's position. I have no ax to grind about a left vs right. What I have an ax to grind about is people who believe that a link between ETS and TRD has been established insisting that anyone who doesn't believe it is gullible, but providing no evidence for that assertion other than a few links, none of which discuss the data or methodology - they only discuss the "findings".
So, let's tread that path slightly shall we, following the order of merit that your source (the cut and pasted info from the American Cancer Society) appears to follow for substance.
The very first point in all the information you cut and pasted from the American Cancer Society was that Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” .
The first source cited for that classification was the US Environmental Protection Agency.
So, they are using a classification from the EPA. And they are quite right. It was indeed the EPA Report of 1993, entitled "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" that originally classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen. You can get the compete report here.
http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793
Your cut and paste does provide several other supporters of this classification. Seems like 4, but it's in fact only two.
1. US National Toxicology Program (the NTP has the EPA on it's Policy Oversight committee, and uses EPA findings as a part of its meta analysis)
2. The IARC (part of the World Health Organization)
So, for now, let's concentrate on the EPA's classification, though I'm happy to discuss the WHO as well once that is bottomed out.
So, key question. The EPA originally listed ETS as a Class A carcinogen in its 1993 report, as referenced above. Why should I believe that report?
If you choose to discuss this with me, then we'll actually be discussing tobacco science. It's normally at this point that people run away, because they actually have to provide their own rationale for why the classification is correct, rather than just cut and paste what the American Cancer Society has to say.
You told me earlier to become a "truly informed citizen". I'm now playing that back to you.
Your move.
Last edited:
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
My move? Do I have to manufacture numerous paragraphs that say nothing like you? You want to dismiss the facts I provided because I copied and pasted them (I did not cut and paste them, because the words are still where I found them). Why don't you dismiss the facts I copied and pasted?
First of all, I am not a scientist, and I don't claim to be. Are YOU a scientist tb?
Let's boil it down to a few 'concepts'.
Let's talk about a paramount concept ...CREDIBILITY.
YOU said: 'I do not dispute that the tobacco companies will try to protect their industry. Nor do I dispute that they misled about the affects of primary smoking'
So tell me tb, WHAT makes you believe the tobacco companies ceased trying to protect their industry? And WHAT makes you believe tobacco companies would not misled about the affects of secondary smoke? Is it fairies tb?
Are the scientists who were right about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who say that secondary smoke is hazardous to human health? Are the scientists working for the tobacco industry who were WRONG and misled about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who dispute the affects of secondary smoke?
There is a saying: 'fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me'
There is also a famous quote from Albert Camus: 'It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners'
Lastly, here are your science experiments for the day: Find a smoker and have him light up a cigarette. Now, you admit that there is clear evidence between primary smoke and Tobacco Related Disease.
1) Is ALL the smoke that fills the room from that cigarette secondary smoke?
2) Buy a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels and wash the windows in that smokers house and car. Then analyze the heavy residues you find on the paper towel and tell me which ones are beneficial to human health?
Finally, you talk about 'methodology'... And here is where the methodology of scientists working for major polluters trying to protect their industry have adopted the SAME methodology used by scientists working for the tobacco industry.
It is NOT rocket science. It is called creating doubt, using obfuscation and launching a PR campaign.
It was clearly spelled out in a memo from the American Petroleum Institute in 1988:
Memo
Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan
Action Plan
Victory Will Be Achieved When
- Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"
- Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
- Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
Current Reality
Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.
Strategies and Tactics
Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).
- Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.
- Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.
- Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.
- Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.
- Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.
- Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.
- Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.
- Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
And it raised the average global temperature by 0.1 degree.
Thank you for aptly representing the right wing mind...
Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #54
And it raised the average global temperature by 0.1 degree.
Thank you for aptly representing the right wing mind...
Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.
The cartoon you've provided tells all, about your lack of understanding of America and Americans.
“... After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life. … Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort. In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties, the widening of culture. Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it.”
Calvin Coolidge
January 17, 1925 Given before the American Society of Newspaper Editors
You cave-dwelling, atavistic Leftists will never understand that....
...you'd best trot off now, the OWS is calling you.
Figures. I ask you to debate the specifics, you not surprisingly respond with more cut and paste (or copy and paste, very clever, score a point for yourself) info.
This business of quoting long posts makes it difficult to navigate so I've added my responses to your specific questions in red for clarity.
So, there you go. I've answered your comments honestly, directly, and with no agenda, despite how utterly worthless they are in terms of the science.
You've chosen to throw a dozen new hats into the ring. None of them prove or disprove anything, other than demonstrating how much you want to rely on fluff and how much you are prepared to believe what anyone says if it is critical of the tobacco industry and can be used to illustrate why they should not be believed. It may be that everything is true, but "may be" isn't enough for me. It shouldn't be enough for you either, unless you apply "Ahhh, maybe is good enough" to everything you are asked to consider.
You talked earlier about "boiling it down". I gave you a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing. It's a key point. You've chosen not to discuss it. You don't need to be a scientist. All you need is a broad familiarity with statistics and sound research practices. If you've got something of genuine worth to add then please do so. By which I mean why do you think the EPA report is reliable, not "Here's what Camus had to say....".
Like I said earlier, it is at the point of really needing to weight the data that most people cut and run. You know you're sidestepping. Either address it or stop wasting my time. Last chance.
This business of quoting long posts makes it difficult to navigate so I've added my responses to your specific questions in red for clarity.
My move? Do I have to manufacture numerous paragraphs that say nothing like you? You want to dismiss the facts I provided because I copied and pasted them (I did not cut and paste them, because the words are still where I found them). Why don't you dismiss the facts I copied and pasted?
Because they are not your "facts". And because your "facts" are only "facts" if you accept them as "facts". You choose to accept them. Why? Well, it will either be because they suit your agenda, or because you don't understand epidemiology and therefore have no choice but to accept them. What you're doing is posting someone else's opinion, saying you agree with it, but you basically have no idea why. Why would I bother attempting to disprove something that you don't understand in the first place?
One other point (and here's something for you to leap all over to prove your case). I'm not saying that they are false. I'm saying that in a number of cases the point is not proven sufficiently for it to form a sound basis for legislation. I have a number of areas of concern, a point I was willing to discuss by taking the very first point you pasted - the issue of ETS being a Class A carcinogen. You don't want to engage in that debate. You don't even want to hear the reasons. Fair enough. If you're happy living like that it's up to you, but please don't challenge me to be better informed
First of all, I am not a scientist, and I don't claim to be. Are YOU a scientist tb?
No.
Let's boil it down to a few 'concepts'.
Sigh. No, let's not. It's pointless. You either discuss the evidence, or you discuss hyperbole.
Let's talk about a paramount concept ...CREDIBILITY.
YOU said: 'I do not dispute that the tobacco companies will try to protect their industry. Nor do I dispute that they misled about the affects of primary smoking'
So tell me tb, WHAT makes you believe the tobacco companies ceased trying to protect their industry? And WHAT makes you believe tobacco companies would not misled about the affects of secondary smoke? Is it fairies tb?
You're making an assumption that because I don't damn everything the tobacco companies say that I must support them. An assumption that if I don't disagree with them then I must agree with them. I don't believe that they ceased trying to protect their industry. I do believe they might try to mislead. I have a number of suspicions about the tobacco industry, which is why I will never take what they say at face value. I indicated in my earlier post that they would probably try to propose different interpretation findings. You must have missed it. Or dismissed it.
Are the scientists who were right about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who say that secondary smoke is hazardous to human health? Are the scientists working for the tobacco industry who were WRONG and misled about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who dispute the affects of secondary smoke?
Probably not. You're talking about a period of 30-40 years. I'd imagine the scientists have changed. The science is most certainly different. However if the point you are driving at is did the tobacco companies once mislead people and might they do it again, the answer in theory is yes. I think I've already said that's why I don't take what the tobacco companies say at face value.
There is a saying: 'fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me'
There is also a famous quote from Albert Camus: 'It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners'
OK. Thanks for sharing. The Fool me once saying I already knew. Actually, same with the Camus quote since you'd already posted it earlier. Not sure either add anything to the discussion but that's OK I'm getting used to it.
Lastly, here are your science experiments for the day: (Really?Science experiments?) Find a smoker and have him light up a cigarette. Now, you admit that there is clear evidence between primary smoke and Tobacco Related Disease.
1) Is ALL the smoke that fills the room from that cigarette secondary smoke?
OK, I'll play. And since you talked about "science experiments", let's be even more specific and assume that this is under laboratory conditions and that no other source can contaminate the findings and that the cigarette was lit with a butane lighter rather than a match, just so we have the exact conditions known. In that case, some will be exhaled smoke, some will be filtered smoke that is uninhaled, but arguably the majority will be sidestream smoke. All three can be considered ETS. In short, yes.
2) Buy a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels and wash the windows in that smokers house and car. Then analyze the heavy residues you find on the paper towel and tell me which ones are beneficial to human health?
But that's not scientific, and in fact it ignores additional elements that could impact health that are not even found on the windows. Plus, windex may be a confounder. Surely a much better idea to simply capture some of the residue directly onto a sterile slide and analyze that. If that happens, then I think it would be unlikely that any of the reside will be beneficial to health and the experiment will be uncontaminated and the findings arguably reliable. All of which proves very little in a genuine scientific sense unless you are saying parts of the human body are made of glass. I understand the point you are driving at, but it is worthless in any real sense.
Finally, you talk about 'methodology'... And here is where the methodology of scientists working for major polluters trying to protect their industry have adopted the SAME methodology used by scientists working for the tobacco industry.
Ignoring all this. I've already told you I'm not going to get into a conversation about climate. It has nothing to do with the issue of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and I don't consider myself anything like as well informed about the subject.
It is NOT rocket science. It is called creating doubt, using obfuscation and launching a PR campaign.
It was clearly spelled out in a memo from the American Petroleum Institute in 1988:
Memo
Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan
Action Plan
Victory Will Be Achieved When
Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"
Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
Current Reality
Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.
Strategies and Tactics
Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).
Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.
Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.
Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.
Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.
Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.
Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.
Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.
Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.
So, there you go. I've answered your comments honestly, directly, and with no agenda, despite how utterly worthless they are in terms of the science.
You've chosen to throw a dozen new hats into the ring. None of them prove or disprove anything, other than demonstrating how much you want to rely on fluff and how much you are prepared to believe what anyone says if it is critical of the tobacco industry and can be used to illustrate why they should not be believed. It may be that everything is true, but "may be" isn't enough for me. It shouldn't be enough for you either, unless you apply "Ahhh, maybe is good enough" to everything you are asked to consider.
You talked earlier about "boiling it down". I gave you a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing. It's a key point. You've chosen not to discuss it. You don't need to be a scientist. All you need is a broad familiarity with statistics and sound research practices. If you've got something of genuine worth to add then please do so. By which I mean why do you think the EPA report is reliable, not "Here's what Camus had to say....".
Like I said earlier, it is at the point of really needing to weight the data that most people cut and run. You know you're sidestepping. Either address it or stop wasting my time. Last chance.
Last edited:
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Figures. I ask you to debate the specifics, you not surprisingly respond with more cut and paste (or copy and paste, very clever, score a point for yourself) info.
This business of quoting long posts makes it difficult to navigate so I've added my responses to your specific questions in red for clarity.
My move? Do I have to manufacture numerous paragraphs that say nothing like you? You want to dismiss the facts I provided because I copied and pasted them (I did not cut and paste them, because the words are still where I found them). Why don't you dismiss the facts I copied and pasted?
Because they are not your "facts". And because your "facts" are only "facts" if you accept them as "facts". You choose to accept them. Why? Well, it will either be because they suit your agenda, or because you don't understand epidemiology and therefore have no choice but to accept them. What you're doing is posting someone else's opinion, saying you agree with it, but you basically have no idea why. Why would I bother attempting to disprove something that you don't understand in the first place?
One other point (and here's something for you to leap all over to prove your case). I'm not saying that they are false. I'm saying that in a number of cases the point is not proven sufficiently for it to form a sound basis for legislation. I have a number of areas of concern, a point I was willing to discuss by taking the very first point you pasted - the issue of ETS being a Class A carcinogen. You don't want to engage in that debate. You don't even want to hear the reasons. Fair enough. If you're happy living like that it's up to you, but please don't challenge me to be better informed
First of all, I am not a scientist, and I don't claim to be. Are YOU a scientist tb?
No.
Let's boil it down to a few 'concepts'.
Sigh. No, let's not. It's pointless. You either discuss the evidence, or you discuss hyperbole.
Let's talk about a paramount concept ...CREDIBILITY.
YOU said: 'I do not dispute that the tobacco companies will try to protect their industry. Nor do I dispute that they misled about the affects of primary smoking'
So tell me tb, WHAT makes you believe the tobacco companies ceased trying to protect their industry? And WHAT makes you believe tobacco companies would not misled about the affects of secondary smoke? Is it fairies tb?
You're making an assumption that because I don't damn everything the tobacco companies say that I must support them. An assumption that if I don't disagree with them then I must agree with them. I don't believe that they ceased trying to protect their industry. I do believe they might try to mislead. I have a number of suspicions about the tobacco industry, which is why I will never take what they say at face value. I indicated in my earlier post that they would probably try to propose different interpretation findings. You must have missed it. Or dismissed it.
Are the scientists who were right about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who say that secondary smoke is hazardous to human health? Are the scientists working for the tobacco industry who were WRONG and misled about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who dispute the affects of secondary smoke?
Probably not. You're talking about a period of 30-40 years. I'd imagine the scientists have changed. The science is most certainly different. However if the point you are driving at is did the tobacco companies once mislead people and might they do it again, the answer in theory is yes. I think I've already said that's why I don't take what the tobacco companies say at face value.
There is a saying: 'fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me'
There is also a famous quote from Albert Camus: 'It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners'
OK. Thanks for sharing. The Fool me once saying I already knew. Actually, same with the Camus quote since you'd already posted it earlier. Not sure either add anything to the discussion but that's OK I'm getting used to it.
Lastly, here are your science experiments for the day: (Really?
1) Is ALL the smoke that fills the room from that cigarette secondary smoke?
OK, I'll play. And since you talked about "science experiments", let's be even more specific and assume that this is under laboratory conditions and that no other source can contaminate the findings and that the cigarette was lit with a butane lighter rather than a match, just so we have the exact conditions known. In that case, some will be exhaled smoke, some will be filtered smoke that is uninhaled, but arguably the majority will be sidestream smoke. All three can be considered ETS. In short, yes.
2) Buy a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels and wash the windows in that smokers house and car. Then analyze the heavy residues you find on the paper towel and tell me which ones are beneficial to human health?
But that's not scientific, and in fact it ignores additional elements that could impact health that are not even found on the windows. Plus, windex may be a confounder. Surely a much better idea to simply capture some of the residue directly onto a sterile slide and analyze that. If that happens, then I think it would be unlikely that any of the reside will be beneficial to health and the experiment will be uncontaminated and the findings arguably reliable. All of which proves very little in a genuine scientific sense unless you are saying parts of the human body are made of glass. I understand the point you are driving at, but it is worthless in any real sense.
Finally, you talk about 'methodology'... And here is where the methodology of scientists working for major polluters trying to protect their industry have adopted the SAME methodology used by scientists working for the tobacco industry.
Ignoring all this. I've already told you I'm not going to get into a conversation about climate. It has nothing to do with the issue of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and I don't consider myself anything like as well informed about the subject.
It is NOT rocket science. It is called creating doubt, using obfuscation and launching a PR campaign.
It was clearly spelled out in a memo from the American Petroleum Institute in 1988:
Memo
Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan
Action Plan
Victory Will Be Achieved When
Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"
Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
Current Reality
Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.
Strategies and Tactics
Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).
Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.
Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.
Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.
Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.
Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.
Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.
Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.
Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.
So, there you go. I've answered your comments honestly, directly, and with no agenda, despite how utterly worthless they are in terms of the science.
You've chosen to throw a dozen new hats into the ring. None of them prove or disprove anything, other than demonstrating how much you want to rely on fluff and how much you are prepared to believe what anyone says if it is critical of the tobacco industry and can be used to illustrate why they should not be believed. It may be that everything is true, but "may be" isn't enough for me. It shouldn't be enough for you either, unless you apply "Ahhh, maybe is good enough" to everything you are asked to consider.
You talked earlier about "boiling it down". I gave you a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing. It's a key point. You've chosen not to discuss it. You don't need to be a scientist. All you need is a broad familiarity with statistics and sound research practices. If you've got something of genuine worth to add then please do so. By which I mean why do you think the EPA report is reliable, not "Here's what Camus had to say....".
Like I said earlier, it is at the point of really needing to weight the data that most people cut and run. You know you're sidestepping. Either address it or stop wasting my time. Last chance.
I will address your post later tonight or tomorrow. I have to sign off.
Here is a word for you to digest: cotinine level
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Figures. I ask you to debate the specifics, you not surprisingly respond with more cut and paste (or copy and paste, very clever, score a point for yourself) info.
This business of quoting long posts makes it difficult to navigate so I've added my responses to your specific questions in red for clarity.
My move? Do I have to manufacture numerous paragraphs that say nothing like you? You want to dismiss the facts I provided because I copied and pasted them (I did not cut and paste them, because the words are still where I found them). Why don't you dismiss the facts I copied and pasted?
Because they are not your "facts". And because your "facts" are only "facts" if you accept them as "facts". You choose to accept them. Why? Well, it will either be because they suit your agenda, or because you don't understand epidemiology and therefore have no choice but to accept them. What you're doing is posting someone else's opinion, saying you agree with it, but you basically have no idea why. Why would I bother attempting to disprove something that you don't understand in the first place?
One other point (and here's something for you to leap all over to prove your case). I'm not saying that they are false. I'm saying that in a number of cases the point is not proven sufficiently for it to form a sound basis for legislation. I have a number of areas of concern, a point I was willing to discuss by taking the very first point you pasted - the issue of ETS being a Class A carcinogen. You don't want to engage in that debate. You don't even want to hear the reasons. Fair enough. If you're happy living like that it's up to you, but please don't challenge me to be better informed
First of all, I am not a scientist, and I don't claim to be. Are YOU a scientist tb?
No.
Let's boil it down to a few 'concepts'.
Sigh. No, let's not. It's pointless. You either discuss the evidence, or you discuss hyperbole.
Let's talk about a paramount concept ...CREDIBILITY.
YOU said: 'I do not dispute that the tobacco companies will try to protect their industry. Nor do I dispute that they misled about the affects of primary smoking'
So tell me tb, WHAT makes you believe the tobacco companies ceased trying to protect their industry? And WHAT makes you believe tobacco companies would not misled about the affects of secondary smoke? Is it fairies tb?
You're making an assumption that because I don't damn everything the tobacco companies say that I must support them. An assumption that if I don't disagree with them then I must agree with them. I don't believe that they ceased trying to protect their industry. I do believe they might try to mislead. I have a number of suspicions about the tobacco industry, which is why I will never take what they say at face value. I indicated in my earlier post that they would probably try to propose different interpretation findings. You must have missed it. Or dismissed it.
Are the scientists who were right about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who say that secondary smoke is hazardous to human health? Are the scientists working for the tobacco industry who were WRONG and misled about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who dispute the affects of secondary smoke?
Probably not. You're talking about a period of 30-40 years. I'd imagine the scientists have changed. The science is most certainly different. However if the point you are driving at is did the tobacco companies once mislead people and might they do it again, the answer in theory is yes. I think I've already said that's why I don't take what the tobacco companies say at face value.
There is a saying: 'fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me'
There is also a famous quote from Albert Camus: 'It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners'
OK. Thanks for sharing. The Fool me once saying I already knew. Actually, same with the Camus quote since you'd already posted it earlier. Not sure either add anything to the discussion but that's OK I'm getting used to it.
Lastly, here are your science experiments for the day: (Really?
1) Is ALL the smoke that fills the room from that cigarette secondary smoke?
OK, I'll play. And since you talked about "science experiments", let's be even more specific and assume that this is under laboratory conditions and that no other source can contaminate the findings and that the cigarette was lit with a butane lighter rather than a match, just so we have the exact conditions known. In that case, some will be exhaled smoke, some will be filtered smoke that is uninhaled, but arguably the majority will be sidestream smoke. All three can be considered ETS. In short, yes.
2) Buy a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels and wash the windows in that smokers house and car. Then analyze the heavy residues you find on the paper towel and tell me which ones are beneficial to human health?
But that's not scientific, and in fact it ignores additional elements that could impact health that are not even found on the windows. Plus, windex may be a confounder. Surely a much better idea to simply capture some of the residue directly onto a sterile slide and analyze that. If that happens, then I think it would be unlikely that any of the reside will be beneficial to health and the experiment will be uncontaminated and the findings arguably reliable. All of which proves very little in a genuine scientific sense unless you are saying parts of the human body are made of glass. I understand the point you are driving at, but it is worthless in any real sense.
Finally, you talk about 'methodology'... And here is where the methodology of scientists working for major polluters trying to protect their industry have adopted the SAME methodology used by scientists working for the tobacco industry.
Ignoring all this. I've already told you I'm not going to get into a conversation about climate. It has nothing to do with the issue of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and I don't consider myself anything like as well informed about the subject.
It is NOT rocket science. It is called creating doubt, using obfuscation and launching a PR campaign.
It was clearly spelled out in a memo from the American Petroleum Institute in 1988:
Memo
Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan
Action Plan
Victory Will Be Achieved When
Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"
Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
Current Reality
Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.
Strategies and Tactics
Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).
Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.
Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.
Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.
Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.
Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.
Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.
Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.
Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.
So, there you go. I've answered your comments honestly, directly, and with no agenda, despite how utterly worthless they are in terms of the science.
You've chosen to throw a dozen new hats into the ring. None of them prove or disprove anything, other than demonstrating how much you want to rely on fluff and how much you are prepared to believe what anyone says if it is critical of the tobacco industry and can be used to illustrate why they should not be believed. It may be that everything is true, but "may be" isn't enough for me. It shouldn't be enough for you either, unless you apply "Ahhh, maybe is good enough" to everything you are asked to consider.
You talked earlier about "boiling it down". I gave you a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing. It's a key point. You've chosen not to discuss it. You don't need to be a scientist. All you need is a broad familiarity with statistics and sound research practices. If you've got something of genuine worth to add then please do so. By which I mean why do you think the EPA report is reliable, not "Here's what Camus had to say....".
Like I said earlier, it is at the point of really needing to weight the data that most people cut and run. You know you're sidestepping. Either address it or stop wasting my time. Last chance.
OK tb, let's recap.
So far you have claimed to know a lot, but have said NOTHING, except criticize me for providing evidence that secondhand smoke is a major health risk.
You posted a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing.
HERE is the major conclusions in the report YOU posted.
1.1. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact.
In adults:
- ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers
In children:
- ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (LRIs) such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS.
- ETS exposure is causally associated with increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and a small but significant reduction in lung function.
- ETS exposure is causally associated with additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. This report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.
- ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.
So tb, your time is up. You claim to know a lot. Shit or get off the pot.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
I got interested in this back when new reports on second-hand smoke were coming out NIGHTLY on the news. I remember the one that got me to the library to study it..
The screaming headline was "Smokers are killing their children".. I read the entire report TWICE. In order to make that claim --- the assumption was that a "child" would have to live in a 2 smoker household CONSTANTLY for 24 years to have a statistically important increase in fatal disease. I can believe that. Doesn't exactly warrant a legal stop for smoking in the presence of a child tho --- DOES IT? Not even close to infanticide either.
Second warning that made my bullshit detector go off were the times that judges threw out several meta-studies as being invalid. These meta-studies violated basic principles of experimental set-up and analysis.
Third warning was --- this is the ONLY TIME I've ever noticed the medical community NOT CONCERNED about dosage when measuring risk. Even mild exposure was just as dangerous as being a secondhand smoke lab rat.
This and the mantra that 2nd hand was MORE DANGEROUS to innocent victims than to the smoker themselves were MORE warnings to me that the 2nd Inquisition had started. And as a science type -- I better be more aware of the fraud and misrepresentation when politicians start making shit up to accomplish their goals.
Figures. I ask you to debate the specifics, you not surprisingly respond with more cut and paste (or copy and paste, very clever, score a point for yourself) info.
This business of quoting long posts makes it difficult to navigate so I've added my responses to your specific questions in red for clarity.
My move? Do I have to manufacture numerous paragraphs that say nothing like you? You want to dismiss the facts I provided because I copied and pasted them (I did not cut and paste them, because the words are still where I found them). Why don't you dismiss the facts I copied and pasted?
Because they are not your "facts". And because your "facts" are only "facts" if you accept them as "facts". You choose to accept them. Why? Well, it will either be because they suit your agenda, or because you don't understand epidemiology and therefore have no choice but to accept them. What you're doing is posting someone else's opinion, saying you agree with it, but you basically have no idea why. Why would I bother attempting to disprove something that you don't understand in the first place?
One other point (and here's something for you to leap all over to prove your case). I'm not saying that they are false. I'm saying that in a number of cases the point is not proven sufficiently for it to form a sound basis for legislation. I have a number of areas of concern, a point I was willing to discuss by taking the very first point you pasted - the issue of ETS being a Class A carcinogen. You don't want to engage in that debate. You don't even want to hear the reasons. Fair enough. If you're happy living like that it's up to you, but please don't challenge me to be better informed
First of all, I am not a scientist, and I don't claim to be. Are YOU a scientist tb?
No.
Let's boil it down to a few 'concepts'.
Sigh. No, let's not. It's pointless. You either discuss the evidence, or you discuss hyperbole.
Let's talk about a paramount concept ...CREDIBILITY.
YOU said: 'I do not dispute that the tobacco companies will try to protect their industry. Nor do I dispute that they misled about the affects of primary smoking'
So tell me tb, WHAT makes you believe the tobacco companies ceased trying to protect their industry? And WHAT makes you believe tobacco companies would not misled about the affects of secondary smoke? Is it fairies tb?
You're making an assumption that because I don't damn everything the tobacco companies say that I must support them. An assumption that if I don't disagree with them then I must agree with them. I don't believe that they ceased trying to protect their industry. I do believe they might try to mislead. I have a number of suspicions about the tobacco industry, which is why I will never take what they say at face value. I indicated in my earlier post that they would probably try to propose different interpretation findings. You must have missed it. Or dismissed it.
Are the scientists who were right about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who say that secondary smoke is hazardous to human health? Are the scientists working for the tobacco industry who were WRONG and misled about the affects of primary smoking the SAME scientists who dispute the affects of secondary smoke?
Probably not. You're talking about a period of 30-40 years. I'd imagine the scientists have changed. The science is most certainly different. However if the point you are driving at is did the tobacco companies once mislead people and might they do it again, the answer in theory is yes. I think I've already said that's why I don't take what the tobacco companies say at face value.
There is a saying: 'fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me'
There is also a famous quote from Albert Camus: 'It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners'
OK. Thanks for sharing. The Fool me once saying I already knew. Actually, same with the Camus quote since you'd already posted it earlier. Not sure either add anything to the discussion but that's OK I'm getting used to it.
Lastly, here are your science experiments for the day: (Really?
1) Is ALL the smoke that fills the room from that cigarette secondary smoke?
OK, I'll play. And since you talked about "science experiments", let's be even more specific and assume that this is under laboratory conditions and that no other source can contaminate the findings and that the cigarette was lit with a butane lighter rather than a match, just so we have the exact conditions known. In that case, some will be exhaled smoke, some will be filtered smoke that is uninhaled, but arguably the majority will be sidestream smoke. All three can be considered ETS. In short, yes.
2) Buy a bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towels and wash the windows in that smokers house and car. Then analyze the heavy residues you find on the paper towel and tell me which ones are beneficial to human health?
But that's not scientific, and in fact it ignores additional elements that could impact health that are not even found on the windows. Plus, windex may be a confounder. Surely a much better idea to simply capture some of the residue directly onto a sterile slide and analyze that. If that happens, then I think it would be unlikely that any of the reside will be beneficial to health and the experiment will be uncontaminated and the findings arguably reliable. All of which proves very little in a genuine scientific sense unless you are saying parts of the human body are made of glass. I understand the point you are driving at, but it is worthless in any real sense.
Finally, you talk about 'methodology'... And here is where the methodology of scientists working for major polluters trying to protect their industry have adopted the SAME methodology used by scientists working for the tobacco industry.
Ignoring all this. I've already told you I'm not going to get into a conversation about climate. It has nothing to do with the issue of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and I don't consider myself anything like as well informed about the subject.
It is NOT rocket science. It is called creating doubt, using obfuscation and launching a PR campaign.
It was clearly spelled out in a memo from the American Petroleum Institute in 1988:
Memo
Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan
Action Plan
Victory Will Be Achieved When
Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"
Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
Current Reality
Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.
Strategies and Tactics
Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).
Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.
Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.
Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.
Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.
Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.
Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.
Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.
Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.
So, there you go. I've answered your comments honestly, directly, and with no agenda, despite how utterly worthless they are in terms of the science.
You've chosen to throw a dozen new hats into the ring. None of them prove or disprove anything, other than demonstrating how much you want to rely on fluff and how much you are prepared to believe what anyone says if it is critical of the tobacco industry and can be used to illustrate why they should not be believed. It may be that everything is true, but "may be" isn't enough for me. It shouldn't be enough for you either, unless you apply "Ahhh, maybe is good enough" to everything you are asked to consider.
You talked earlier about "boiling it down". I gave you a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing. It's a key point. You've chosen not to discuss it. You don't need to be a scientist. All you need is a broad familiarity with statistics and sound research practices. If you've got something of genuine worth to add then please do so. By which I mean why do you think the EPA report is reliable, not "Here's what Camus had to say....".
Like I said earlier, it is at the point of really needing to weight the data that most people cut and run. You know you're sidestepping. Either address it or stop wasting my time. Last chance.
OK tb, let's recap.
So far you have claimed to know a lot, but have said NOTHING, except criticize me for providing evidence that secondhand smoke is a major health risk.
You posted a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing.
HERE is the major conclusions in the report YOU posted.
1.1. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact.
In adults:
.
- ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers
In children:
- ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (LRIs) such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS.
- ETS exposure is causally associated with increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and a small but significant reduction in lung function.
- ETS exposure is causally associated with additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. This report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.
- ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.
So tb, your time is up. You claim to know a lot. Shit or get off the pot.
Charming as ever.
What you've done is to read one of two pages, grab the headline findings and then regurgitate them here. And I really love the way you have capitalized certain words ("HERE is the major conclusions in the report YOU posted."). I know what I posted, so why are you telling me what I posted? Are you, by any chance, doing it because your responses are meant not for me but for others? Just stop it, forget that other people may be reading it and try to think of this as a one on one conversation.
I asked you to say why you supported their findings. As with every other post you have made so far, you have simply reposted what someone else has said, and not given the first thought to answering the question "Why do you believe it". I'm going to give it one last shot at drawing your thoughts rather than someone else's out of you.
OK. To again keep the conversation focused, I'm going to concentrate it, otherwise we'll be here all day. And for consistency, I'll concentrate once again on the first point you have chosen to list.
That number, 3000, is pretty much the same as the number listed in the link you originally posted from the American Cancer Society. So, after nearly 20 years, the number is the one that the ACS, and other groups and the media, continue to quote. The EPA report is what originally established the link, originally quoted the 3000 figure and classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen.
I have asked you why you think that is reliable. Your response to me is to quote what the report says.
So, once again, you're quoting their position rather than saying why you agree with it, so I'm going to assume you agree with it simply because it is from the EPA and you don't have the knowledge or the inclination to review it and see whether their conclusions hold water.
This seems odd, on the basis that if the tobacco industry released a report you would instantly dismiss it as a bunch of slanted lies, but since this is the EPA you just parrot what they are saying. If you want to be "truly informed" you should question BOTH. You should view BOTH as potentially having an agenda. But since you appear to just accept the EPA report as factual (that would be the implication of your actions), I will now point out to you some things about the EPA report that ought to make you say to yourself "What would I think if a report from the tobacco industry followed this same methodology/process". As a reminder, I an NOT saying that the EPA report is incorrect. What I am saying that just swallowing their conclusions without chewing is just as naive as swallowing a report from a pro-smokers rights group.
So, dividing my concerns up into broad areas.
Area A: Studies used to support the 3000 figure
1. The EPA report is a meta analysis. That means it contains no proprietary research. It is an analysis based on existing reports, all of which use different methodologies. That does not invalidate any of the findings. However, it does make the analysis in all the different studies difficult to aggregate accurately. I'm sure we can agree on this. It's a simple statement of statistical fact.
2. The EPA located a total of 33 reports that were relevant to their study (i.e. that compared ETS to lung cancer rates). Of these, they dismissed 2 and used the remaining 31. Later on a further study was excluded, leaving the total meta analysis at 30 studies.
3. On page 1-9, point 1.3.1.2 Indicates "The best estimate of approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths per year in U.S. nonsmokers age 35 and over attributable to ETS (Chapter 6) is based on data pooled from all 11 U.S. epidemiological studies of never-smoking women married to smoking spouses.
NOTE: So, we're now down to 11 reports. This does not invalidate the findings, but it does make one question the objectivity to a degree. More on this later.
Area B: Confounders, Relative Risk (RR), Confidence Interval (CI)
Confounders are elements that specifically need to be accounted for within results. For instance, if calculating the average number of people who will develop heart disease, it is important to consider ethnicity, because heart disease is significantly higher in some communities than others. Without accounting for this, you will be seriously skewing the results.
Finding out the RR is basically the key goal of any epidemiological study. For instance, if you want to determine the RR of drinking red wine on heart disease (something for which studies have jumped back and forth for decades), you first need to establish a baseline by finding out how many people have heart disease. Let's say 10 people in 1000 have heart disease. That gives us the baseline, and is referred to as a RR of 1.0.
If data shows that 15 out of 1000 red wine drinkers have heart disease, that would be a RR of 1.5. If it's 20 people, that's a RR of 2.0, and so on. These figures would start to imply that there was perhaps some sign of increased RR. If however, the figures showed that only 5 of the 1000 have heart disease, that's a RR of 0.5, and may indicate a beneficial effect. In general, statisticians prefer a RR of at least 2.0 in order for RR to be considered statistically significant.
In addition to this, the CI is used to determine how precise or reliable the stated RR truly is. CI is usually expressed as a range, such as 0.90 to 1.30. A 95% confidence level is normally required
NOTE: So, all these things need to be taken into account when you review the methodology.
Once again, I'll keep it simple for you here since giving a whole host of issues is going to overwhelm you and will mean you just go back to posting generalized links to cover your lack of understanding
So......consider the following and then make up your mind about whether you feel the EPA Report should be universally accepted (as it has been), or whether it is reasonable to consider that perhaps the evidence is not as well founded at one might expect from an institution such as the EPA.
- The report concluded that there is an overall relative risk of 1.19 for developing lung cancer for female non-smokers in the U.S. with a 90 percent confidence interval of (1.04, 1.35). The report also says that this evidence is "statistically significant and conclusive".
Why do I have a concern about this?
Because a RR of 1.19 is, in statistical terms, utterly insignificant. It indicates a 19% increase. 19% is barely worth the paper it's printed on. Ideally, you'd be looking for a RR of 3.0 or higher. 2.0 is really scraping the barrel. This isn't simply my view. Its Epidemiology 101. How the EPA can say 1.19 is "statistically significant" simply beggars belief.
So, the EPA classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen with by
- Setting aside many of the reports
- Accepting a 1.19 RR
- Dropping the CI to 90%
And the question therefore is, would this kind of slack / flawed level of rigor be accepted if the report was about anything other than the tobacco industry? Let's face it. If the tobacco industry produced a report that used similarly flawed parameters they would, quite rightly, be pilloried. But, if the tobacco industry raises issues with the EPA report, those issues are dismissed because they have been raised by the tobacco industry. Bizarrely, if the tobacco industry criticizes the methodology, it actually has the result of making people rally round the EPA to defend it from 'Big Tobacco' irrespective of whether the criticism has merit.
That is about the simplest way I can boil down one of the key findings. There are a number of other potential areas of concern as well, but I've asked you for your views on the overall report more than once and you basically said nothing other to repeat the report. So, now I've focused on one particular but key element. The Relative Risk. If you can't answer directly about this one issue - why you feel a RR of 1.19 should be considered statistically significant - then it is clear that you have no answers other than somebody else's.
If you've got questions about this particular point please feel free to let me know. If you're just going to wander off into something else or throw some more climate science links around please don't even bother - and have a nice day.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
It's Not The Scandal, It's Your Response That I'm Interested In- Started by PoliticalChic
- Replies: 1
-
DHS removes list of 'sanctuary' cities after sheriffs push back on non-compliant label- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
If you think the Mods do a bad job here, try some other boards.- Latest: OhPleaseJustQuit