Smokers are people too!

Originally posted by adigregorio
That is not what it says, read the full source as well as paragraph and it will explain how they fabricated those numbers. If you still can't find/figure it out I will elaborate for you.

[edit]

This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide--0.93 to 1.44--that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit.

[edit on 3/6/2008 by adigregorio]

Even then the mean of the margin is at about 25% more risky. The 16% is a conservative estimate. The chance of the risk of second hand smoke being less risky than no smoke is actually only about 4.8% according to their methodolgy.

You aren't seriously contending tha breathing Second hand smoke is not measurably more risky than not breathing second hand smoke are you?


You must like 1 in 20 odds I guess.


[edit on 6-3-2008 by pavil]

reply to post by pavil


It isn't risky at all, Second Hand Smoke does NOT CAUSE CANCER. Please read through all of the sources it shows that no evidence exists showing that second hand smoke causes cancer.

The percent is 0

The complete list of things that give you cancer (according to epidemiologists)



Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, cooked foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, UV radiation, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays.


I googled things that cause cancer and this litlle list came up. Who knew. I think it was the first link maybe the second where I got this. I am getting little worry warts all over. These are things in our every day life that are considerd the standard to living a healthy life arent they. If you quit smoking because you think it will cause cancer you might have a couple of other things to consider.

First of all, please, for the love of whatever imaginary friend you believe in, learn to use the fraking quote tags right.

Secondly, your arguments are becoming increasingly MORE illogical. please stop it.

This is a typical excuse of the irrational smoker. Since we can't eliminate all the causes, we should eliminate none. Nice logic.

And this is representative of a typical argument from your average ignorant anti-smoker. "Let's infringe this group of people's rights to eliminate this ONE thing that annoys us, and ignore the other, more important issues..because, ya' know...they're convenient to us."

you're a hypocrite.

Actually it's just fine. The problem is you don't want to hear it because you're a smoker with an addiction and when you believe your addiction is threatened in any way, you lash out just like any other drug addict.

No, it's not "just fine", it's moronic in the extreme....we're here to deny ignorance, not foster it.

You're saying just because other people's smoking annoys you, we should have to be inconvenienced. It's already been shown in this thread that your health concerns are not nearly as drastic as you make them out to be, so you can get off the "you're going to give me cancer" bollocks....

And comparing us smokers to "drug addicts", is just laughable....when's the last time you saw a smoker kill, or rob someone, so they could get a cigarette? Unless they've got a mental condition, it just doesn't happen. So much for that argument. Would you like to try something else?

I honestly can't tell you how many people end up in the hospital or die each year from asthmatic episodes but I did post some information a few posts back feel free to read and hopefully learn

Ok, i'm not interested in how many people end up in the hospital, or die from asthma attacks...i'm interested in how many fatal, or near fatal asthma attacks are caused by errant, heavily diluted cigarette smoke. If you can't come up with a (reliable, and properly sourced) number, then please don't try to use it as a point in your argument.

Rescue inhalers are not a 100% cure all. Before spouting a comment like this, please look into it a little.

My kid brother has asthma, i know all about it...

If you believe the data I've posted is incorrect, prove it.

that's the great part...i don't have to, someone else already did....

It's very interesting how you keep lashing out at me like a typical addict.

This is just blatantly inflammatory, and defamatory, at the same time...not to mention complete rubbish too....

I'm not lashing out at you like a typical drug addict. You don't like my argument, so you automatically assume i'm just another stupid drug addict smoker, who's lashing out because they think their addiction is being threatened. gimmie a break...

I'm reacting this way, not because i'm a smoker, but because your argument is baseless, without reason or logic, and you just sit here, ignorantly sticking to it, even though you've been proven wrong.

If your argument was "i think smoking should be done outdoors, because i don't like the smell" well, then, that would be valid.....but you try to work the health angle, and use absolutes, and it's not working, because it's bull#...so in reality, you're masking your personal agenda, with a veneer of fake concern for others...

There is not a 100% chance that you will develop one of these 2 diseases, however there is an increased risk with each progressive exposure. So being exposed to cigarette smoke drastically increases your chances of contracting these diseases.

No guarantee. That is correct but the chances are GREATLY increased. Try using your same brilliant argument while swimming in shark infested waters. "there's no guarantee that I'll get eaten even if I do swim here. It's just scaremongering".... uhuh...

I havent' seen numbers related to COPD, but as stated earlier in the thread, the lifetime risk of cancer only goes up to 8% for smokers...and it's already 1% for non-smokers. That's lifetime risk, as in you smoke all the time. All this second hand risk nonsense is just that.....nonsense.

8% is not what i'd describe as a "drastic increase"

Again, with the shark comment, you use a totally idiotic, and invalid comparison, to try and make a point. Cigarette smoke is in no way like sharks. You're comparing apples and oranges. Will you please stop doing this?

Proof you don't pay attention. I never said, "if you smoke you WILL die from it".

Nope, you never said those exact words, but you make the implication every chance you get.

How about this:
I have asthma and cigarette smoke has, on more then one occasion, initiated an asthmatic episode with one sending me to the hopital. My granfather died from emphysema related illness from cigarette smoke. My mom is currently on oxygen with COPD. She stopped smoking 25 years ago and has had several doctors tell her it was from smoking cigarettes. Is that enough RESEARCH for you?

I'm sorry to hear about your health issues, and those of your mother. I am also sorry for your loss. However, your personal experiences are NOT representative of every single person on earth. Genetic predisposition plays a very large part in whether or not we contract certain diseases, and how severe they become.

Some people smoke their whole lives, and suffer relatively no ill effects, whereas some smoke for a relatively short time, and develop nasty things like lung cancer...a lot of it is in the genes.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by Daedalus]

reply to post by adigregorio



You quote an article that quite plainly shows a 95% certainty of House with second hand smoke being more risky than a non-smoking household and then you claim the risk is Zero? Fuzzy math there IMO.


[edit on 6-3-2008 by pavil]

Proof you just don't get it. You want to smoke where ever you want. I want the same thing without smoke. So who wins? Once YOUR smoke hit's me, your smokers rights end.

No, this is proof YOU don't get it. if you don't like the smell, (or as it is with your case, it actually triggers an asthma attack) then just don't go to that place....why is that so hard to understand?

Why should the rights of other individuals, or the rights of a business owner be stripped away for the convenience or comfort of others, when the better solution is just so much simpler?

This is the same dumbass argument used by the moral crusaders when they attack television "sex and violence shouldn't be on television", and then they try to use concern for the children as their reasoning, when it's really just a simple matter of them not liking it, and them thinking it's ok for them to force their personal preferences, and ideas of how things should be on others. it's stupid, it's selfish, and it's not right.

Actually they never did. They only worked for the smokers who didn't care whether or not smoke was everywhere. That's the problem. Smoke never confines itself to one area just because of a sign.

and that's why there were vents, and air filtration systems in smoking sections. There wansn't smoke "everywhere"

Try this analogy
You can drink all you want. Nobody cares as long as you chose the appropriate location to do so. Can you drink while driving? NO? Why not? Because now your habit is affecting others around you. Same thing with smoking. Does that sink in just a little ? So for your argument to be valid, you must also agree that you should be able to drink and drive.

this is hands down, the stupidest thing you've said thus far. You are again comparing apples and oranges....When you smoke next to someone, they don't automatically die. when you operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (see: impaired), you run the risk of causing a traffic collison, which COULD, and in most cases DOES kill people. Also, location has nothing to do with drinking....you can drink in a bar, in a restaurant, in a hotel, in your house, in someone else's house...you just can't operate a motor vehicle while you're drinking, or after you have been drinking...because you could kill someone.

You can smoke and drive though.....why? Because it doesn't cause physical or mental impairment...You're not gonna run off the road, or hit things, or kill anyone, because it's nowhere near the same.

Once again, your argument is invalid. care to try again?

reply to post by pavil


Every one of the articles I quoted says Second Hand Smoke (ETS) Does not cause cancer. Looks to me like you are pulling what you want to see out of "one" of the sources I quoted. Nice try, but shady debate. Read the other sources, what are your thoughts on those?

Like the faulty science used to create the 16% you are omitting key points in the quotations to get at your point of view. Like teacher, like student I guess.

www.epa.gov...

Secondhand Smoke Can Make Children Suffer Serious Health Risks

1. increases in the number of asthma attacks and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children with asthma;

2. between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (for children under 18 months of age); and

3. respiratory tract infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year.

www.webmd.com... study-raises-ire

I don't and won't get in a link war. There are just 2 samples of things.

I think there are more studies linking second hand smoke to increased risk than the other way around.

reply to post by pavil


One of my sources deals with this, you obviously didn't read through them.

They stated that the children would not have an attack if they didn't know that there was smoke in the room.

next...

Originally posted by jfj123

Disprove the information.

Sorry friend, it doesn't work this way. It is established that for debating purposes, wikipedia is not a valid reference, because of the ease in which it can be modified by anyone. As i said, i could modify the COPD article so it says that it is caused by excessive fellatio....which is, of course, not true..

I can't do that to a medical journal, or some other static, non-biased medical resource. Don't be so lazy...dig something reliable up to back your position. The burden of proof is on you.

Furthermore, if you would have read my sources you would have seen that the EPA was the one doing the faulty science.

I am done with debating with you until you read through my points. It is obvious you have not. The others reading the thread, and who have read my sources will also agree that this has been covered already in said sources.

reply to post by adigregorio


Then pray tell, what is exactly the increased risk? What are they more at risk to getting?

One report I just linked to tried to show no link to cancer but a small increase in COPD. COPD is a horrible way to live and then die, I've seen too many people suffer from that.

Again do you contend that a lifetime of second hand smoke in the house is just as safe as No Smoke in the household? Pretty easy to say yes or no to.




[edit on 6-3-2008 by pavil]

Originally posted by tep200377
reply to post by sparda4355

 

Can you in any way at all justify your smoking to a second hand smoking cancer victim?


[edit on 6-3-2008 by tep200377]

can you actually find us one?

reply to post by pavil


To all other readers of this thread, this question will be answered once the poster reads through the sources I have cited. Of course once they do that the question will have been answered for them.

Pavil: Your icon thing on the side of the post says michigan on it.

I grew up in Michigan. The snow there sticks around for a while. Serious question do you think that snow on the side of the road and in parking lots there is black because of smokers. There is no where to hide from it. Please open your mind and look at the big picture no matter how much you want to believe a cigarrete is not going to have a better chance at causing asma in some one compared to that black soot. I have been in a house that was smoked in for a long time and it will leave a yellow like stain on the walls after a while. Does that years of smoking that causes yellow really sound worse than BLACK soot that causes a week to build up.

Originally posted by goblue
The complete list of things that give you cancer (according to epidemiologists)

"work"

someone ought to ban that!

and regarding the whole smoke break thing, I probably wouldnt smoke today if it werent for smoke breaks. Ive had jobs in the past that basically required you smoke if you wanted a break.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by scientist]

Daedalus:
Has there really been a second hand smoke cancer victim. I am not good dealing with people telling me this is bad for me and this is not but. Did you happen to read all the things that cause can cause cancer on the list I posted above. It stated things like vegetables or friut can cause cancer. When you buy a commercialy grown apple from the grocery store or almost any vegetable is has very toxic chemicals on them. Of course anti smokers dont care that if you eat that apple or vegetable it will not hurt the people around you but it could give you cancer. Isnt that called a double standard round these parts ombre.

Why not, Quit Smoking!

lol

I don't smoke cigarettes and having to walk through a sick cloud of carcinogens every morning when I walk into work is totally disgusting. I try and want to sympathize, but I don't think smokers take much consideration for people who don't.

When I breathe or exhale I don't emit cigarette smoke, so therefore I can exhale anywhere without grossing anyone out, but for smokers they seem to think they have more of a right than some one who doesn't. Why is ok for them to fill my lungs w/ 2nd hand smoke when I hate it? I have friend who smoke and I stand out of the path.

I mean, I feel for smokers. Not being able to smoke in bars is stupid, etc.
You shouldn't have to smoke 2-300 yards from the door, but when smokers light up the moment the walk out is lame for non-smokers. Also, if you smoke out of the walk way/side walk , it shouldn't be a problem you know?
Its just when smokers smoke every where, leaving those of us won't have to walk through the smoke.

Cheers

Originally posted by Nohup
Arguing with smokers is just pointless. It's exactly the same thing as arguing with a crackhead about giving up crack. It's an addiction. Smokers will always rationalize and try to justify their actions. That's what addiction is. It affects your thinking.

It's not that bad.
It's even good for you.
It's my right to do what I want with my body.
I'm not really hurting anybody.
Why should I have to be the one making sacrifices?
If people don't like it they can choose not to be around it.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Addict talk.

Smokers should just be thankful that tobacco companies make so much money and have so much traditional lobbying power that it hasn't been made as illegal as crack. Enjoy your addiction while it's still legal.

What i find hilariously ironic about this gent, is that while he's sitting here railing against smoking, his avatar is some old bloke, smoking a pipe, lol

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by adigregorio

 

Obviously your addiction has allowed you to convince yourself that smoking just isn't bad for you in any way. I wish you good luck.

You're being stupid again, and working in absolutes.....

His data isn't saying it's not bad for you at all....it's saying that it's not as bad as the anti-smoking movement says it is....