Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids?

[Phoenix One]

I'll happily answer this and any future questions/points you might have if you actually respond to the substance of my post instead of just telling me I'm wrong and using the old loopy smily.

 

Rubbish. I already showed there is no evidence to support smoking causes cancer. Your not interested in evidence, you are just interested in opinions that support your position on the issue.

[uptheowls88]

Rubbish. I already showed there is no evidence to support smoking causes cancer. Your not interested in evidence, you are just interested in opinions that support your position on the issue.

 

nicely said :P

[flamingjimmy]

Rubbish. I already showed there is no evidence to support smoking causes cancer.

 

Seriously, if you're just going to ignore all the points I make and tell me I'm wrong over and over it makes you look like an idiot.

 

You are 15 times more likely to get cancer if you smoke.

 

90% of people with lung cancer are cigarette smokers.

 

My source for this information is a peer reviewed scientific study done over the course of several years and involving well over 1.5 million participants.

 

Your not interested in evidence, you are just interested in opinions that support your position on the issue.

I absolutely am interested in evidence, that's why I presented to you this study, 3 or 4 times now. You have still not commented on it, because you are intellectually bankrupt and have no counter.

 

Your source is a single Scottish judge who has 0 scientific qualifications and is in no position to comment on whether cigarettes cause cancer. What makes this even wierder is that an 'opinion that supports your position' is all that you've got.

 

You have the opinion of one scottish judge on your side. I have a peer reviewed scientific study on mine. You have not presented any evidence whatsoever, all you have done is present the personal opinion of one judge.

[Phoenix One]

Seriously, if you're just going to ignore all the points I make and tell me I'm wrong over and over it makes you look like an idiot.

 

You are 15 times more likely to get cancer if you smoke.

 

90% of people with lung cancer are cigarette smokers.

 

My source for this information is a peer reviewed scientific study done over the course of several years and involving well over 1.5 million participants.

 

 

I absolutely am interested in evidence, that's why I presented to you this study, 3 or 4 times now. You have still not commented on it, because you are intellectually bankrupt and have no counter.

 

Your source is a single Scottish judge who has 0 scientific qualifications and is in no position to comment on whether cigarettes cause cancer. What makes this even wierder is that an 'opinion that supports your position' is all that you've got.

 

You have the opinion of one scottish judge on your side. I have a peer reviewed scientific study on mine. You have not presented any evidence whatsoever, all you have done is present the personal opinion of one judge.

 

Your not quoting evidence, you're quoting statistics that can and have been doctored. Take the statistics on UK's current unemployment problem for example. The statistics state it is at 2.5 million, but when you scrutinise it then true unemployment in UK is exposed at over 6 million.

 

With regard your second argument, no judge is on my side, and I am very well known to judiciary and authorities. You also neglected to note the evidence presented to that judge. He could not rule against the evidence without having the matter appealled. The evidence submitted did not support smoking causes cancer. NHS sites posting it does on their sites are lying, and note those NHS sites and NHS are not involved in scientific studies. They tow the government line. A good example is man contributing to global warming fraud (global cooling in 1975). Hundreds of top researchers have gone against it and dispute the findings. It had become a matter for Senate Minority report in USA. The whole incident has become a major embarressment for more than one government.

[JFKvsNixon]

Your not quoting evidence, you're quoting statistics that can and have been doctored. Take the statistics on UK's current unemployment problem for example. The statistics state it is at 2.5 million, but when you scrutinise it then true unemployment in UK is exposed at over 6 million.

 

With regard your second argument, no judge is on my side, and I am very well known to judiciary and authorities. You also neglected to note the evidence presented to that judge. He could not rule against the evidence without having the matter appealled. The evidence submitted did not support smoking causes cancer. NHS sites posting it does on their sites are lying, and note those NHS sites and NHS are not involved in scientific studies. They tow the government line. A good example is man contributing to global warming fraud (global cooling in 1975). Hundreds of top researchers have gone against it and dispute the findings. It had become a matter for Senate Minority report in USA. The whole incident has become a major embarressment for more than one government.

 

So, just to summarise, is it your opinion that carcinogenic chemicals do not cause cancer, or are you suggesting that cigarettes do not contain any carcinogenic chemicals?

[Phoenix One]

So, just to summarise, is it your opinion that carcinogenic chemicals do not cause cancer, or are you suggesting that cigarettes do not contain any carcinogenic chemicals?

 

Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?

Introduction

 

So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn't it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?

 

Oxford's cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality "can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking." Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.

 

If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn't!

 

The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:

 

* tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;

* that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;

* that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;

* that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;

* and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.

 

Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:

 

"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".

 

Read more: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

[JFKvsNixon]

Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?

Introduction

 

So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn't it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?

 

Oxford's cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality "can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking." Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.

 

If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn't!

 

The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:

 

* tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;

* that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;

* that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;

* that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;

* and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.

 

Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:

 

"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".

 

Read more: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

 

I'm sorry but you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it. Is it your opinion that carcinogenic chemicals do not cause cancer, or are you suggesting that cigarettes do not contain any carcinogenic chemicals?

[Phoenix One]

Jay Gordon, MD

 

Pediatrician

Posted February 16, 2009 | 01:23 AM (EST)

 

"There Is No Proof that Cigarettes Cause Cancer"

 

It took fifty years before the courts finally acknowledged that cigarette smoking causes cancer.

 

There were billions of dollars at stake.

 

The dozens of court decisions that there "was no proof" were supported by physicians, expert witnesses of all types and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on attorneys.

 

Experts and doctors alike stated over and over again that we need not continue studying this issue because there was just no proof.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-gordon/there-is-no-proof-that-ci_b_167157.html

[Phoenix One]

Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?

Introduction

 

So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn't it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?

 

Oxford's cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality "can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking." Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.

 

If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn't!

 

The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:

 

* tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;

* that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;

* that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;

* that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;

* and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.

 

Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:

 

"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".

 

Read more: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

 

I read it, and you posed a trick question. A question that was answered very well by experts in the field. Every substance contain chemicals, and the issue is not whether or not those chemicals are dangerous, but in what amount do they become a danger to health. Further, the article I was looking for answers your question, but its been a long time since becoming involve in any debate on this issue. I will post it if and when I find it, but like I said, it is a trick question, and if you want to travel that road then you must include all the other chemicals that people eat and drink every day that would be a danger and harm health. This is a favourite ine pursued by anti-smoking lobby, and it is not only misleading but flawed. Maybe I could simplify it for you. Do you drink water? Does our water supplies contain floride? Is floride dangerous? Have fun with that one!

[JFKvsNixon]

I read it, and you posed a trick question. A question that was answered very well by experts in the field. Every substance contain chemicals, and the issue is not whether or not those chemicals are dangerous, but in what amount do they become a danger to health. Further, the article I was looking for answers your question, but its been a long time since becoming involve in any debate on this issue. I will post it if and when I find it, but like I said, it is a trick question, and if you want to travel that road then you must include all the other chemicals that people eat and drink every day that would be a danger and harm health. This is a favourite ine pursued by anti-smoking lobby, and it is not only misleading but flawed. Maybe I could simplify it for you. Do you drink water? Does our water supplies contain floride? Is floride dangerous? Have fun with that one!

 

I never asked if cigarette smoke contained chemicals, I asked if if you believe whether the cigarette smoke contained carcinogenic chemicals, or if you believe whether carcinogenic chemicals caused cancer?

 

Lets take hydrogen peroxide for example, do you believe that it doesn't cause cancer, or do you believe that it's not present in cigarette smoke?