[gela]

I am aware that other countries conduct studies to try to find out what causes different illnesses. The biggest concern in Australian research now is that the ozone hole over that area that results in skin cancer. Some of those other countries also develope treatments and cures that are ignored by our medical establishment here in the USA. No matter where the study is conducted there is a difference between junk science and sound science and so far you refuse to see that difference.

America's biggest concern is the war in iraq, I suppose they don't know much about anything else but war.

There is no difference. They are just different ways of research.
You fail to realise the depth that 'junk science' goes into, and the millions of studies that have been undertaken. Out of those millions of stuides, not 1 has even slightly disproved the fact that cigarettes are unhealthy.

You said that this person who smokes also watched tv? guess what, they ask how much tv you watch when they ask you about your life style.
They ask everything over a huge and diverse sample size.
The only common factor in these hugely diverse sample size is smoking.
90% is an impossible statistic to argue with. They also compare the health of a smoker with a non smoker.
They find that 3 times as many smokers have health problems then non smokers.

Japan imports a lot of cigarettes from USA companies.

wtf does this have to do with anything?

I fully agree that certain chemicals can cause health problems, perhaps even cancer (confirmed by tests on rats and other animals). And I agree that they can find tiny trace amounts of those chemicals in cigarette tobacco. As well as other plant foods we might cook and eat. What I am saying here is that you must be exposed to a large enough dose (amount of the chemical) for it to have an impact on your health. Example: I could introduce a teenie weenie trace amount of rattlesnake poison to your blood and you would never feel or have any bad side effects, and although that poison in a larger dose can kill you, a teenie weenie amount would do nothing to put your health status at risk. Same with all those chemicals you claim are found in cigarettes or cigarette smoke. My point is that the trace amount is too small to represent a health risk and they know it, but still use that finding to scare people.

Put a teeny weeny amount of rattle snake poision in my blood 40 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and 30 years and I would start to get worried.

Now science knows that if you add a trace amount of rattlesnake poison to your blood stream on a repeated bases that your immune system can build of better resistance to a actural snake bite in full dosage. Some people do that if they are in the snake business. If I used that fact as a backdrop I could speculate that a trace amont of carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke could help be build up resistance to the tons of carbon monozide released everyday via car fumes. But nooooooooooo, they do not want to conduct as study like that, and I feel politics is behind it.

whats the difference between inhaling carbon monoxide from cars, and inhaling carbon monoxide from cigarettes?

Im glad to see that you have given up on the conspiracy theories. Looks like we are getting somewhere after all.

Now back to the link to that survey that I provided a link too. Interactive stress quiz for instant health risk results! The questions are like those used to determine if smoking is bad for you (in some of those studies about smoking and life styles ) but in this case they are researching stress as a health hazard. Do you feel the test is "scientific" or not? Will answering the questions give you a honest answer about your "health risk status"? I do not think the test is sound science for a number of reasons. Are you all smart enough to tell me why it is not "sound science"? Would everyone really answer all the qustions honestly?

If I were you, I would do some more research into the science you are critisising. Because that comment makes you look increadibly ignorant.

Your real problem seems to be peoples attitude to smokers, and the anti smoking campaign. That is a legitimate problem that I will support you in. However, with the way your going about it, no one is taking you seriously.

Incase you haven't realised, I competely ignored the voodoo joke. It is not worth my time.