[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Technosoul: There is scientific evidence, directly linking cigaret smoking to lung cancer, emphasema, and a long list of other illenesses. This science is called epidemiology. Alot of time, and money, and effort is spent, by scientists, comparing peoples life styles to their health problems. These scientists have found, indesputably, that smoking causes lung cancer. Go ahead and argue with your logic, unfortunatly, you are not a scientist, and you do not have the data that these scientests have, and have used to prove the risks of smoking. Everyone in the city has an equal chance of getting lung cancer because of the pollution? Wrong. These studies have found that if you smoke, you have a higher chance of dying. Its just that simple. It is science. Wrong. The purpose of our lungs is to provide a surface for cellular respiration. They are not, in any way, designed to filter out harmful chemicals. That is why the harmful chemicals stay in our lungs, and slowly destroy the alveoli - causing emphesema. Yes, the scietists don't know anything, and you know everything. Apparently every government in the world are focused on cigarettes, because these results arn't only found in America. Also, it is against the governments interests to reduce smoking - they get a shit load of tax off it, and its more consumarism to help the economy. I have studied how emipidematology works in biology, they look at everything, they have huge huge sample sizes, they found that smoking kills. You have a hunch, and you have the fact that you don't want smoking to be bad for you because it feels good. A trace amount of a harmful chemical. Right, so you smoke two packs a day? I've never smoked, so I don't know how many cigarettes are in a pack, but im going to take a guess at 12. So, multiply that trace amount by 24, then multiply the result by 356, then multiply that number by how ever many years you have been smoking. Our lungs are not designed as a filter, they have no method of removing chemicals once they are in there. Unless you count wheezing and coughing, which arn't all that effective. My proof? I've ever heard of anyone that could cough up tar. Or I could just sit up wind from them.. Im not stupid enough to believe that occaisionaly inhaling a small amount of smoke will kill me. My friends always smoke out side, and they arn't heavy smokers. If I was going to ask them to stop, it would be because I hate the smell, not because of health risks. Cigarette smoke gets into the carpet and the funiture and makes it smell. People don't like the immediate smell, and It sets off some asthma reactions. Its perfectly reasonable for businesses to ban smoking on their premises. Unfortunatly, you are a minority - no ones going to be inconvienienced by a minority.

You keep saying you have this mountain of evidence. But that mountian is only as good as the foundation it was built upon - deceptions

Here is a link about a court case were a person lost in an attempt to sue the tobacco industry, the reason he lost as that his lawyers could not bring into court any good evidence based on real science. Now I keep talking about real science but it should be noted that other kinds of science does exist, but they cannot be accepted as representives of absolute factural turths.

FORCES International -  Cigarettes don't cause cancer

Comparing a person's life style to their health problems is science but not what is termed as "real" science. It provides some stats for making an speuclative guess, but it is not proof. That is partly because the study can be slanted to get the results you have on your agenda, and because they could leave out a lot of possibles when they conduct that study group. I have debated this, any real scientist would agree with me, and yet you deny it.

Just go down to the science and technology forum and ask those who debate there that have lots of knowledge about science and they can explain the difference between real science and stat collecting.

I am not a scientist, but the only reason I do not have the data your scientists have is because they got no proof to give to me. Only those statements of potential deception. At least none is being shared via internet resources. Not even my own doctor could supply me with such data. Repeating a statement over and over does not make it true, would you believe Hitler's government if they did that?

What is your point about people living in a city and being exposed to high doses of carbon monoxide from car fumes? Why is that anymore wrong then your claims?

they have 20 cigarettes per pack. But it is what is contained in the smoke and not what is in the cigarette that matters. What trace amount of tar is in the smoke from a pack containing 20 cigs? We cannot do the math if we do not know what the trance amount is. Because you are representing that data you should know what the trace amount is. If you wish to make it simple just tell us the trace amount in smoke form one cigarette.

If the lungs did not act like a filter how come the tar did not continue into the blood instead of remaining in the lungs? By the way, the illness you discribe is passed down via the genes (dna) and not "caused" in the manner you discribe. According to other science sources. Why do you think doctors ask about your family tree history? Why do they ask if anyone in your family, such as your mother or grandmother, ever had cancer - etc. Because they have evidence by another study that it is a genetic illness. Which is a different cause then cigarette smoke.

You are simply saying that I have no right to question your authority because if is back by their authority. The scientific research community that tells us eggs cause cancer one week and then the next week they do not but are healthy. The authorites who reported the electric blankets cause cancer, until another study reversed that claim. The same authorities who go on TV and say they just found a cure but must study it for 10 more years, so they need donations, then the cure is never ever marketed and everyone fogets the about the phoney claim. Hell, if they marketed a cure they would loose their jobs researching for a cure, now that makes sence.

Now if they put rat poison in beef the government would demand a recall, because we know for a fact that rat poison can make you ill or cause death. Why no recall on cigarettes for the same reason? Answer: lack of proof.

But you have got me defending cigarette smoking relative to claims made by the anti-tobacco group. But you have avoided all the reasons why I smoke in my first posting, and have not debated those reasons.
Which is the purpose of this thread, to talk about the reasons why people smoke, not the evidence pro and con about para-scientific research. We should get back on the right track.