Quote:
Quote by: gela  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.
wtf does this have to do with anything?
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.
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.
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. |
I am not sure if Iraq is the biggest concern. I think more people gripe about the smell of cigarettes then they do about the war in Iraq. But you would only know that if you were a smoker. Most of the people think that the smell of tobacco is a greater threat to their well bieng then those terrorists. Relative to my experience.
Millions of studies? How do I know that this statement is factural, what if they only conducted 900 studies? Got proof.
They did have studies that found no link between smoking and cancer, but the anti-smoking people told everyone that the tobacco industry was somehow funding those studies and so nowadays people view those studies and "incomplete" or as .... junk science. They even had one ad on TV about that to discredit studies that found no links between smoking and serious health problems. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember that? Do not kid your self. The tobacco company could in fact afford to hire scientists to conduct studies and to make claims that smoking is not harmful (and they in fact did that) just like the Bush people got scientists to disprove that global warming is caused by fosil fuels. With millions of dollars being donated to the anti-smoking research programs it is not wonder they get the results they do. Drug companes spend millions on TV to downplay the fact that aspirin can prevent health attacks just so they can sell their own expensive products. Money talks, and the fact is that oil companies, companies like Dow Chemical, IBM, and so froth collectively have more money then the tobacco industry to pay for those research programs.
I did not say that TV watching caused cancer. I used that as an example to discredit junk science. Please interpet what I posted correctly. And if they asked that question then show me the proof they asked it by posting a copy of those questions used by them during a actural study.
How can I comment on it if the question form is not in front of me to look at it? Why should I take your word of what you claim?
Okay. They took a survey (still being used by doctors who learn it at medical school) back in the late 1950s that showed that smokers had 3 times as many health problems as non-smokers. Here is the problem with that survey.
1) - In the 1950s 3 times as many smoked then did not smoke.
2) - Many more people start smoking later in life and the older you get the more likely you are of having health problems, non-smoking children are not as likely to have health problems and they are part of the over all population count. Age is a big factor. So, do we have more people over the age of 30 smoking then under the age of 30?
3) They conducted one study in Africa and found that the native women did not suffer a lot from lung cancer but they found a number of (non-smoking) Nuns (white people) who had cancer of the brest. Both the Nuns and the Natives lived in the same environment. That rasied the question as to why the white nuns had a high rate of cancer and not the native black women. They discovered that race played a role in what kinds of illnesses you are most likely to encounter in your life.
4) If smoking is the major cause of all those health problems then how come 25 percent of the unhealthy people are non-smokers? If they were isolated from "the cause" then they should not have been effected by the cause, and therefore would not be unhealthy. Logically speaking. That fact is evidence that smoking is not a major cause of such unhealthy condidtions. But if most of the population smoked and only 25 percent did not smoke, then that would account for why those stats appeared. But were not correctly interpreted.
Your math does not apply when it comes to being scientific about this, no matter how worried you become. You presume that you are adding more to the total amount of the chemical present without comprehending that the first trace amount would be long gone and so you are not creating a large dose. Like as if a put a drop of water in a bucket everyday, I would not fill the bucket up because the drops of water would evaperate faster then the water being added. Sorry to say you used your imagination instead of common sense to make that point. The trace amounts in the smoke from two pack of cigarettes would not even amount to a drop of water. You cannot overdose on those chemicals with cigarettes.
The difference is the amount inhaled. If you lived in a city where you had millions of cars and trucks filling the air with tons of toxic Carbon Monoxide you would be getting a gaint dose of the stuff. With no clean air left to delute the Monoxide with. Where as you get just a teenie weenie amount from cigarette smoke.
Test it out. You stand in a closed garage with a car pumping out fuel fumes and I will stand in a garage with 40 people smoking, and my self smoking, we will stay there one month. Guess who will come out in the best best health? Or guess who would die and who would not die? . Are you up to doing that real time test? Point made.
I agree with you on one point. I do not really care if they publish some report for a medical mag that smoking is linked to all those diseases or health problems. My only concern is that they want to prevent smokers from taking part in society, banning us from everything, and selecting us for "higher sales taxes" that other people do not pay for their products. and the constant verbal attacks. The "control freaks" are a big problem, and you are not really one of those kinds of people. But in order to control the control freaks from taking over I must debate their claim that smoking is not healthy and the studies they use to make that claim. Basically they are putting smokers in same class with criminals and murderers. And I do not believe that claim is based on sound science.
At least let people die by the vice of their own choice. I let people drive their cars, so final word - bug off and stop the anti-smoking conspriacy.