Passive smoking kills 600,000. Thank goodness for our smoke free workplaces

[lizmachin]

I don't accept that passive smoking kills - still not PROVEN.

I don't smoke in the house simply because of the smell and the ceilings/ furnishings becoming discoloured.

 

 

Well you are flying in the face of all evidence from scientific studies.You are simply denying reality.

 

But it is still fascinating that you feel it is fine to subject everyone else to the stink and inconvenience you don't want in your own home. Do you let your dog crap on your neighbors lawn?

[evildrneil]

Having read the article in the Lancet (go do it - it's free - you just have to sign up) and it seems fairly sound and uses a pretty robust methodology. As with all science it is of course open to debate and the paper will have been thoroughly peer reviewed before being published. Of course things have slipped through this net before (such as the MMR/autism "link") but it seems reasonable to treat these findings with rather more weight than people claiming it's unfounded anti-smoking propaganda!

[lizmachin]

Having read the article in the Lancet (go do it - it's free - you just have to sign up) and it seems fairly sound and uses a pretty robust methodology. As with all science it is of course open to debate and the paper will have been thoroughly peer reviewed before being published. Of course things have slipped through this net before (such as the MMR/autism "link") but it seems reasonable to treat these findings with rather more weight than people claiming it's unfounded anti-smoking propaganda!

 

I fully agree. It is all very well for smokers to campaign to have smoking rooms or whatever, but when they resort to trying to deny the simple health FACTS, then they lose any sympathy I might have for their plight.

[billo]

I would like to see scientific prove and not just a study by the anti smoking lobby who I have no doubt would be only to happy to feed us a big load of crap to get us to see things their way.

I am not saying that passive smoking is bad and I am not saying it is harmless but I would like to see prove from somebody that is not biased like the anti smoking lobby.

[Guest]

Well you are flying in the face of all evidence from scientific studies.You are simply denying reality.

 

But it is still fascinating that you feel it is fine to subject everyone else to the stink and inconvenience you don't want in your own home. Do you let your dog crap on your neighbors lawn?

 

Have I not made it clear that I don't accept the "SO CALLED EVIDENCE"?

I trust that I still have the right to believe what I want to believe and not what you tell me I can.

 

I find it "fascinating" that you seem to know where and when I smoke - I don't subject anyone to the stink and inconvenience.

 

I don't have a dog although I love them dearly and NO, I would not let them crap on my neighbours lawn - I fail to see what this has to do with smoking though.

Does that answer your questions?

[evildrneil]

I would like to see scientific prove and not just a study by the anti smoking lobby who I have no doubt would be only to happy to feed us a big load of crap to get us to see things their way.

I am not saying that passive smoking is bad and I am not saying it is harmless but I would like to see prove from somebody that is not biased like the anti smoking lobby.

 

Firstly it's almost impossible to prove - human life has too many variable to control. The best evidence you have is epidemiology which isn't an exact science any more than medicine is.

 

As for the "anti-smoking loby" this study was funded by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and Bloomberg Philanthropies not some anti-smoking group.

[evildrneil]

Have I not made it clear that I don't accept the "SO CALLED EVIDENCE"?

 

Any principled reason for rejecting the scientific evidence?

[Guest]

I fully agree. It is all very well for smokers to campaign to have smoking rooms or whatever, but when they resort to trying to deny the simple health FACTS, then they lose any sympathy I might have for their plight.

 

We don't DENY any facts - we simply do not believe them because they have not been PROVEN - this freedom of thought, which you would like to take away from us, is our right.

 

You, like us, are fully entitled to believe what you want and we certainly won't cry ourselves to sleep because we don't have your sympathy.

[Guest]

Any principled reason for rejecting the scientific evidence?

 

Yes, it's still theory - no one has yet proved a single case where anyone's cancer (such as Roy Castle's) was definitely caused by passive smoking.

[evildrneil]

Yes, it's still theory - no one has yet proved a single case where anyone's cancer (such as Roy Castle's) was definitely caused by passive smoking.

 

As pointed out before you can't provide that absolute proof. Lung cancer is very strongly correlated with passive smoking (along with many other illnesses) but there will never be absolute prrof as there are simply too many variables to control for. That being said there is very little in science that does have absolute proof - that's not how science works.