Quote:
Quote by: gela  Here you go, proof that the studies arn't biased: Smoke and Mirrors: The Canadian ... - Google Book Search
You don't have to read the whole thing, I sure as hell didn't.
But If you read the first two pages, you will find that the person who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking, was a smoker himself.
Making it impossible for him to have a biased against smoking.
Just note that this is a canadian publication aswell.
Secondly: Antismoking Laws Curb Smoking and Lung Cancer - News
This was a study done in Finland. I want you to find a reason for them to be biased about this. Queensland Health Tobacco Laws - Passive smoking
600 medical reports.. all agreeing with eachother.. yep, a pretty conclusive result. Oh, and this is Australian. Largest Ever Asian Smoking Study Reveals Cardiovascular Health Risks
Heres a study done on Asians, by an international health Institute. About The George Institute Home
Heres a little page about them. Seems that they are legally independent, and non-profit. Again, no reason for bias. Scotland smoking ban bolstered by new research - International Herald Tribune
Heres some reseach done in Scotland, by a University.
Ok, Now please, tell me how all this reseach is biased. You've admitted that Epidemiology is a valid form of science. Now prove that all these studies are equaly biased against smoking, despite the fact that they are all from different institutions, and from different countries. |
Now I can return to the links you said would provide me with some proof.
The Queensland news article.
Again - lots of claims without any evidence presented to back up the claims.
If I went to our science forum and did that they would demand I show them my evidence, what experiments I conducted, what methods did I employ. Etc. Your link did not reveal any of those detials or answers.
The Asian study (link).
If you read carefully you will note the this study has not gone through the processes of a peer review as yet, and not yet published due to that peer review.
The person spearheading the study has a PhD in "Applied Statistics". And no background or education about diseases (was mentioned). In other words he conducted a poll. Much like our poltical polls are conducted. And for some reason has a urge to get laws passed to ban smoking in Asian countries which would suggest a bias. His study conflicts with a study done here in the USA. He is promoting his own company and his lecturing tours, which is his source of living.
I am not at all impressed by poll takers.
The last link showing proof - that is "claims without the evidence" is about banning smoking inside of a public place.
I do not think that a non-smoking bar maid should be subjected to a lot of smoke in a closed in, compacted area. That makes sense. But I also do not think that the blame falls on the smokers. The problem is that the building does not have a good air-circulating system. Which is the fault of the owner of the establishment. If you create smoke by cooking hamburgers inside, or if you have a fireplace - you provide a way to remove that smoke up the chimmey, or you open a lot of windows. You would not just let the smoke from hamburger cooking fill up the kitchen with smoke, that makes sense. But they took the cheap way of doing things - make the smoker go outside instead of installing the proper air-circulation system that is needed for that building. What a bunch of cheap skates!