Smoking in Public / Cancer

Tinkleflower,

Good luck with your search.

A perfect ETS/cancer study is impossible. There can never be a study of exactness as related to the development of cancer. Waiting, or expecting one, is impractical.

There is no one single cause of any disease. We can only talk about cofactors, causative agents and life situations that like peaces of puzzle comes together and promote disease of cancer. There are hundreds of cofactors and causative agents that each have casual relationship to poor immunity, poor health, accumulation of toxins inside body, poor thoughts and each one have been mistakenly called cause of cancer. Most important cofactors are lack of knowledge, poor thoughts, lack of consciousness, lifestyle, diet, exposure to toxins, life situations...No two persons in the world have exactly the same set of cofactors, thoughts and life situations.
Significantly different set of cofactors, thoughts and life situations can promote (cause) the same kind of cancer in two different persons.
Almost identical set of cofactors, thoughts and life situations can cause different kind of cancer in two different persons.

To acquire such a study, one would have to take everything into account. Genes play a large role - So all of the subjects ancestors, from their moment of conception to death, and the said individual, from their moment of conception, up to the development of the disease. Every cofactor would have to be taken into account, not just for the current subject, but all their ancestors.

Smoking actually mutates/damages your DNA, which is in part, how our immune systems become more susceptible to a disease like cancer. DNA is also how we pass our traits to are children, so on and so forth, therefore all restructuring of the DNA would have to be recorded - all mutations. Not to mention all the cofactors that could of attributed to the changes - air, water, diet, smoking, physical activity, mental activity, alcohol consumption, stress, other drugs etc. etc. ad infinitium.

Last but not least, the subjects life would have to be monitored in full which is implausible.

In any similar study, data can be contended with. There is simply too much data that must be implemented to perfect a study of this type. Contenders of the aforementioned studies attempt to exploit that fact. Nonetheless, without being able to say "Well Stacy your chances of developing cancer are increased 64.806096086444 times". We can say "well Stacy your chances of developing cancer are increased". And that is all that matters here.

A precise study of unrelentless exactness is not necessary to see that second-hand smoke contributes to cancer in smokers and non-smokers alike. I mean, in the worst case scenario, a study amounts to this:

Groups A and B are comprised nondistinctly. They have an assortment of lifestyles. The only thing the groups have in common is being generally in good health.

Group A is exposed to Secon-Hand Smoke, while group B isn't.

Some members of Group A develop cancer while no members of Group B do.

You can throw a rock at a window and close your eyes before it hits. SOUND OF SHATTERED GLASS!!! Now you don't know for sure you smashed the window, right? So just keep throwing rocks and close your eyes before they hit, that way, you don't really have any reason to think you broke the windows. Thats what denying the findings of these studies amounts to.