Bigthumb Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 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. Its rather like the old lady who gets beaten up by thugs and dies next day. There is no absolute proof that the thugs killed her but anyone with half a brain knows it did. When a study of people shows those exposed to passive smoke get more related diseases and die earlier than those not exposed then most sensible people will accept the findings. There are of course those who will try and deny everything that doesn't fit their particular agenda. Fortunately Governments will listen to the WHO and ignore the fanatics and nutters. That is why we have smoking banned in enclosed public places and no amount of bleating and denial of evidence is going to alter that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Its rather like the old lady who gets beaten up by thugs and dies next day. There is no absolute proof that the thugs killed her but anyone with half a brain knows it did. When a study of people shows those exposed to passive smoke get more related diseases and die earlier than those not exposed then most sensible people will accept the findings. There are of course those who will try and deny everything that doesn't fit their particular agenda. Fortunately Governments will listen to the WHO and ignore the fanatics and nutters. That is why we have smoking banned in enclosed public places and no amount of bleating and denial of evidence is going to alter that. Are we all not allowed to accept or not accept those findings for ourselves - who gave you the right to tell everyone else what they should think? Now that smoking is banned in public places, people are NOT being exposed to passive smoking any more - your agenda therefore, is now fulfilled so why are you still persisting with this stupid and tiresome crusade and, after repeating this same stuff, over & over, what do you hope to gain next? I have news for you - WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I had 2 uncles who were heavy smokers and died of lung cancer but their wives did not suffer from the disease. My father smoked from when he was 15 and stopped when he was about 85 mainly due to him suffering from COPD. He lost his smokers cough about 3 months after stopping. My mother did not have lung cancer. Passive smoking does not seem to have affected my mother or aunts after living with smokers for many years. Just an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Are we all not allowed to accept or not accept those findings for ourselves - who gave you the right to tell everyone else what they should think? Now that smoking is banned in public places, people are NOT being exposed to passive smoking any more - your agenda therefore, is now fulfilled so why are you still persisting with this stupid and tiresome crusade and, after repeating this same stuff, over & over, what do you hope to gain next? I have news for you - WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE! Oh dear an angry man who can't debate. You can accept what you like. You can bury your head in the sand as you obviously have chosen to do. But of course none of that alters the fact that the medical experts that governments listen to say PASSIVE SMOKING KILLS. Perhaps you are wasyting your time telling folks what you think they should be allowed to post. You seem to be the one who is banging the same drum over and over again. The difference is that you post utter tripe and pretend it is fact. I'm sure that your version of truth will convince your fellow idiots down at the pub, but it certainly won't convince those who pass the legislation because they listen to people who deal in facts and common sense. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.. Yes but you are likely to die younger and probably from a burst blood vessel later tonight.:D:D:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Oh dear an angry man who can't debate. You can accept what you like. You can bury your head in the sand as you obviously have chosen to do. But of course none of that alters the fact that the medical experts that governments listen to say PASSIVE SMOKING KILLS. Perhaps you are wasyting your time telling folks what you think they should be allowed to post. You seem to be the one who is banging the same drum over and over again. The difference is that you post utter tripe and pretend it is fact. I'm sure that your version of truth will convince your fellow idiots down at the pub, but it certainly won't convince those who pass the legislation because they listen to people who deal in facts and common sense. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.. Yes but you are likely to die younger and probably from a burst blood vessel later tonight.:D:D:D You post what you like - I don't tell anyone what to post. What I tell you is that I've made my choices and that is no business of yours. With regard to your ending paragraph, I'm not young now and am probably older than you already - I have been smoking legally for closer 60 years than 50 and I'm sorry to disappoint you but my blood vessels seem fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHYTOT Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 You post what you like - I don't tell anyone what to post. What I tell you is that I've made my choices and that is no business of yours. With regard to your ending paragraph, I'm not young now and am probably older than you already - I have been smoking legally for closer 60 years than 50 and I'm sorry to disappoint you but my blood vessels seem fine. A tough old boy like you should have no problem with the cold weather when they are smoking outside then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 A tough old boy like you should have no problem with the cold weather when they are smoking outside then. None at all - it's just that they don't have a pool table or any music outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHYTOT Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 None at all - it's just that they don't have a pool table or any music outside. Have you asked? There you are a problem solved in 2 minutes. Just play pool in the car park and buy an Ipod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 Have you asked? There you are a problem solved in 2 minutes. Just play pool in the car park and buy an Ipod. Never thought of that - how stupid of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 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. The Swedish National Board of Health have a vested interest in the NRT industry, which is dominated by Scandinavian brands. Did the study account for the amount of smoke inhalation by children exposed to cooking fire smoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.