Ooh, I can't wait for the weekend to see what the pubs and clubs are like without that haze around the bar...
Printable View
Ooh, I can't wait for the weekend to see what the pubs and clubs are like without that haze around the bar...
as far as i know this legislation was enacted for the rights of the employees. It's to bring the UK in line with european human rights legislation.
I support the right to smoke. and it should be noted that this doesn't tell a smoker they can't smoke, it merely frees the worker from having that choice imposed on them.
I think this is a good balance between individual freedoms. it doesn't infringe on the right to smoke, which is a personal choice, and it preserves teh freedoms of those who don't wish to be smoked at.
And the 'no one is forcing them to work there' is a bad bad argument. sure, you accept increased risk in certain jobs, but when accidents occur the company can still be held liable. the employer has a duty of care, and this legislation identifies a risk factor and deals with it at one go.
i can't wait for next year.
bring.
it.
on.
As I said, smoking is the biggest health concern in the Western world and that's not a matter of evaluation. I've read your link and the main problem is that - apart from linguistical details such as the word "cause" - statistics aren't interpreted right. Let's go over it in detail:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
1) USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
As I said, that's outrageously much. Very few common behaviours that are considered unhealthy lead to a similar increase. Your chance of dying in a car accident is only 1 to 1000000. An exception is hardcore drug abuse, but that's much less prevalent.
2) No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (<5 cigars/wk, not inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.
That may be true, but 5 cigars a week is very low for smokers. Most smokers smoke more than that. I don't have a link but I read of a study that showed that only 1 cigar per day increases the chance for some forms of cancer significantly.
3) Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**
Only number 9 ~:rolleyes: Of course, smoking does not only cause lung cancer but many other forms of cancer as well and also coronary heart disease, another top ten player (number one in Western countries).
4) All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**
In the world. In Western countries it is more. And weighted for prematurity lung cancer is cause of death number one in the Western world. All health problems caused by smoking combined account for 5 million deaths worldwide every year. The only factor causing more deaths is starvation.
5) Occasional cigarette use (<1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk factor in lung cancer.
That's the same as number 2, isn't it?
6) Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.
Yes, carbonmonoxyd is more dangerous, that's why releasing more than minimal quantities of it is illegal. Point me to a pollution that as dangerous as smoking and as legal.
7) Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
You provided sources yourself that refute this.
8) A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
This point proves the bias of this argumentation. A WHO study in 1998 found increased risk of lung cancer for passive smokers but the increase was not significant due to the small sample size. It is in fact (weak) evidence for the dangers of passive smoking. Using it to defend smoking is ludicrous.
9) No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
We have already established that passive smoking causes lung cancer. If no study has shown that for children in particular then maybe because none such study has been conducted.
10) In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.
I wonder whether he actually had a look at the study. The authors would probably be shocked to know being quoted in such a context. They state clearly that cigarette smoke is a carcinogene for humans. They also mention that a similar treatment like theirs has caused lung cancer in rats. They do not even conclude that cigarette smoke isn't a carcinogene for mice (they are scientists after all). They propose further studies that take longer than 6 months. But even if mice are resilient agaist tabacco, that's not really surprising. Rodents are in general more resilient to unhealthy environmental conditions.
Again, this point shows clearly the unscientific nature of his arguments.
11) If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)
20% decrease in premature death rate! 20% for christsake! Ending all wars, terrorism, criminality and traffic accidents wouldn't contribute half as much. Healing AIDS wouldn't contribute as much. But he's right, the major cause of preventable death isn't smoking but starvation. Smoking is second.
First I wonder why they lied and stated 20, some 40, and second I wonder how this can be related to the 8%. And then I find my answer, of course, there has to be a necessary relation, and it's 8% will be not enough so they exagerated it, the previous article mentioned that it was done that way under the excuse that the common people will not understand the risks unless you stated it that way. Other risks might be relative going from place to place, but let's see the one about being hitted by a car and possible dying because of it. This source has a table that shows this:Quote:
1) USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
As I said, that's outrageously much. Very few common behaviours that are considered unhealthy lead to a similar increase. Your chance of dying in a car accident is only 1 to 1000000. An exception is hardcore drug abuse, but that's much less prevalent.
Event ChanceThis Year
Car stolen 1 in 100
House catch fire 1 in 200
Die from Heart Disease 1 in 280
Die of Cancer 1 in 500
Die in Car wreck 1 in 6,000
Die by Homicide 1 in 10,000
Die of AIDS 1 in 11,000
Die of Tuberculosis 1 in 200,000
Win a state lottery 1 in 1 million
Killed by lightning 1 in 1.4 million
Killed by flood or tornado 1 in 2 million
Killed in Hurricane 1 in 6 million
Die in commercial plane crash 1 in 1 million to 10 million
So as you see at least this chances contradict your chances. The chances of getting cancer are still high without smoking, that's true, however smoking it's of 8 in 500, the difference appears pretty low to me.
Yes I've read them too, but the significance is not that significant. Even considering what it does, or what we think it does, to non-casual smokers, all passive smokers are casual smokers (or even a lesser degree). That has to have some relevance even for the more unwilling to accept that this ban is ridiculous.Quote:
2) No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (<5 cigars/wk, not inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.
That may be true, but 5 cigars a week is very low for smokers. Most smokers smoke more than that. I don't have a link but I read of a study that showed that only 1 cigar per day increases the chance for some forms of cancer significantly.
From the source (in the section of hearth diseases, I think you picked up the previous source, I'm talking about the next one, wich is more complete): "The connection between smoking and heart disease is far more tenuous than that between smoking and lung disease. Though the medical establishment considers smoking to be a risk factor (among many risk factors) for heart disease, the fact remains that anywhere from 30 to 50% of those admitted to hospitals for coronary problems exhibit none of the known risk factors (including smoking), and that the research is by no means either consistent of conclusive in linking smoking the heart disease. It is true that deaths from heart disease, which is still the number one cause of death, are declining but most researchers attribute this to better surgical and medical techniques, not to a decline in smoking rates, since deaths from heart disease are declining world-wide, even in countries with high smoking rate."---"Smoking is by no means the only risk factor for lung cancer, and in some occupations cigarette smoking appears actually to help protect against getting the disease. Lung cancer is acknowledged to be on the rise both in the U.S. and elsewhere despite the decline in cigarette smoking which began more than 25 years ago. "---"Further, lung cancer among nonsmokers seems to be increasing, while the rate of lung cancer among smokers is decreasing, thanks to the advent of filtered cigarettes, which nearly every study has shown decreases risk anywhere from 20% to 30% (only one such study is listed here)." It's only a risk factor for both diseases, as many risk factors for other diseases, that we accept. I think that the main problem is the use of the word "cause" still, and that has pushed many people to believe that eliminating tabacco smoking will cause the rate of appearence of lung cancer to dicrease to a minimal, wich is untrue.Quote:
3) Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**
Only number 9 ~:rolleyes: Of course, smoking does not only cause lung cancer but many other forms of cancer as well and also coronary heart disease, another top ten player (number one in Western countries).
They're not caused by, in a given case it could be that it was because of smoking or not, but many times non of those factors are recognized as the cause of the actual disease. That's an exageration. About the western world, that's the principal cause of death in men, and still there's the issue of cuasation by smoking tabacco. Now the ironical thing here is that it appears the quantity of smokers has been declaning in the most advanced countries, that includes great part of the western world.Quote:
4) All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**
In the world. In Western countries it is more. And weighted for prematurity lung cancer is cause of death number one in the Western world. All health problems caused by smoking combined account for 5 million deaths worldwide every year. The only factor causing more deaths is starvation.
You said it yourself. Carbon Monoxyd is expelled by cars, combustion working cars. But agregate to that list other possible pathogens: nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, benzene, formaldehyde and polyciclic hidrocarbons.Quote:
6) Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.
Yes, carbonmonoxyd is more dangerous, that's why releasing more than minimal quantities of it is illegal. Point me to a pollution that as dangerous as smoking and as legal.
They only oppose this, there's no serious refutation, and seeing how the research carried out by the principal health agencies are biased, I'll seriously doubt those sources. From the same source: "In 1993, EPA labeled secondhand smoke a "known human carcinogen." This was based on its analysis of about 30 epidemiologic studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer. But 80 percent of the studies did not support EPA's decision. So how did EPA justify its conclusion?Quote:
7) Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
You provided sources yourself that refute this.
EPA performed a "meta-analysis" of the studies. That is, the relative risks from the 30 studies were weighted, pooled and an "average" relative risk of 1.19 was calculated. And EPA concluded that secondhand smoke increased lung cancer risk 19 percent."
And:"Researchers from the University of California (San Francisco) and the University of California (Berkeley) did a meta-analysis of 23 epidemiologic studies of diesel exhaust and lung cancer (Note: 7 other diesel exhaust/lung cancer studies were excluded from the meta-analysis, 6 of which did not support the researcher's ultimate conclusion).
Skepticism regarding the carcinogenicity to the lung of diesel exhaust in humans arises from three main concerns about the epidemiologic evidence. First, and probably most important, the magnitude of the effect observed in most studies is low, with relative risks (RRs) typically under 1.5. Second, of the 30 studies conducted on the relation between diesel exhaust and lung cancer, only four have obtained either quantitative data on current exposure or semiquantitative data on historical exposure. None has obtained quantitative data on historical exposure, the measure most relevant to the development of lung cancer...Third, the effect of cigarette smoking has been controlled in only about one-half the studies...
[The authors] conclude that the data support a causal association between diesel exhaust and lung cancer in humans. Has science proven causality beyond any reasonable doubt? Probably not. The repeated finding of small effects, coupled with the absence of quantitative data on historical exposure, precludes a causal interpretation."
First it's not exactly to defend smoking, he also says that it's dangerous and recommends not to do it more than occasionally, however, what he wants is to put things as they're. Second, and from the source (again, not the one that you saw, but the next -the one in the hyperlink "interesting source"): "It is not surprising that the WHO is now the vehicle to expand this economy of loot at global level. But reality has not changed: while the WHO is barking its absurd tobacco-related mortality figures based on statistical assumptions dictated by a political agenda, real science still has no proof for the WHO's claims." The propaganda machine, WHO.. About the WHO study of 1998.Quote:
8) A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
This point proves the bias of this argumentation. A WHO study in 1998 found increased risk of lung cancer for passive smokers but the increase was not significant due to the small sample size. It is in fact (weak) evidence for the dangers of passive smoking. Using it to defend smoking is ludicrous.
Actually it was. The same 1998 study of the WHO was tested on families, and it showed in fact that in certain cases second hand smoke decreased the chances of getting cancer for the childs.Quote:
9) No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
We have already established that passive smoking causes lung cancer. If no study has shown that for children in particular then maybe because none such study has been conducted.
I agree that part was not exactly professional. About the study on rodents. That's exactly what the excerpt said, they simply couldn't, not that it's relevant because mice are rodents, and we want to know humans.Quote:
10) In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.
I wonder whether he actually had a look at the study. The authors would probably be shocked to know being quoted in such a context. They state clearly that cigarette smoke is a carcinogene for humans. They also mention that a similar treatment like theirs has caused lung cancer in rats. They do not even conclude that cigarette smoke isn't a carcinogene for mice (they are scientists after all). They propose further studies that take longer than 6 months. But even if mice are resilient agaist tabacco, that's not really surprising. Rodents are in general more resilient to unhealthy environmental conditions.
Again, this point shows clearly the unscientific nature of his arguments.
That's of course a prediction, and not exactly of the future, but from the past. But you must admit that it's an exageration, I mean what you said next. I find this to be of little relevance anyway.Quote:
11) If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)
20% decrease in premature death rate! 20% for christsake! Ending all wars, terrorism, criminality and traffic accidents wouldn't contribute half as much. Healing AIDS wouldn't contribute as much. But he's right, the major cause of preventable death isn't smoking but starvation. Smoking is second.
I think that it's overly demostrated that secondhand smoking, the primary issue in all this topic, has never show any scientific evidence that puts it as a significant risk factor for cancer. Occasional second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer. Even according to EPA figures, living with a heavy smoker for 30 or 40 years, will only increase the nonsmoker's chance of getting lung cancer from 0.4% to 0.6%.
By the way, actively smoking has a lot of privileges for your health, but it's better to not show them, right?...Hell it can even prevent cancer.
Yes, my mistake. I gave the chance of dying in a car accident per year, and not even that correctly. But my claim : "Very few common behaviours that are considered unhealthy lead to a similar increase" still stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Who said that?Quote:
First I wonder why they lied and stated 20, some 40...
Some passive smokers are indeed more than casual smokers. If you're living in a household with a heavy smoker, you're exposed to more tabacco smoke than a casual smoker. Of course, non-smokers like me who live alone and are exposed to tabacco smoke occasionally are not the issue. But it's established that the harm of smoke is dose dependent. That means that it's not that slight exposure has no effect but the effect is too small to be found with the usual studies. But again, that's not the issue. The issue is that smoking has a huge negative effect on the health of society.Quote:
Yes I've read them too, but the significance is not that significant. Even considering what it does, or what we think it does, to non-casual smokers, all passive smokers are casual smokers (or even a lesser degree). That has to have some relevance even for the more unwilling to accept that this ban is ridiculous.
It would probably decrease by about 70%. And you can't have it both ways. Tabacco smoke either causes cancer or it's completely harmless. "To cause" does not mean that the effect has to appear in 100% of the cases. If we would use such a definition we would have to say that nothing causes cancer. It just miraculously appears. No cancerogene substance on earth has an effect rate on 100%. "To cause" means that the cause is connected to the effect in a causal way. The former brings the latter about. Hell, it's as if you would argue that sex doesn't cause pregnancy!Quote:
It's only a risk factor for both diseases, as many risk factors for other diseases, that we accept. I think that the main problem is the use of the word "cause" still, and that has pushed many people to believe that eliminating tabacco smoking will cause the rate of appearence of lung cancer to dicrease to a minimal, wich is untrue.
Fallacy. The presence of the consequence while absence of the antecedent doesn't refute the implication.Quote:
They're not caused by, in a given case it could be that it was because of smoking or not, but many times non of those factors are recognized as the cause of the actual disease. That's an exageration. About the western world, that's the principal cause of death in men, and still there's the issue of cuasation by smoking tabacco. Now the ironical thing here is that it appears the quantity of smokers has been declaning in the most advanced countries, that includes great part of the western world.
And releasing any of them in a pub is illegal. Your point is?Quote:
You said it yourself. Carbon Monoxyd is expelled by cars, combustion working cars. But agregate to that list other possible pathogens: nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, benzene, formaldehyde and polyciclic hidrocarbons.
A meta-analysis is a statistical procedure to pool multible studies. Even if 100% of the studies had not supported the EPA's decision, a meta-analysis may come to different result because the statistical power increases. Meta-anaylses are legit procedures that are used in many fields in science. There were concerns about possible bias in this study, that is why an independent team of researchers re-analized the data adjusting for bias. They still found a significant result.Quote:
They only oppose this, there's no serious refutation, and seeing how the research carried out by the principal health agencies are biased, I'll seriously doubt those sources. From the same source: "In 1993, EPA labeled secondhand smoke a "known human carcinogen." This was based on its analysis of about 30 epidemiologic studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer. But 80 percent of the studies did not support EPA's decision. So how did EPA justify its conclusion?
EPA performed a "meta-analysis" of the studies. That is, the relative risks from the 30 studies were weighted, pooled and an "average" relative risk of 1.19 was calculated. And EPA concluded that secondhand smoke increased lung cancer risk 19 percent."
You can find a link to the study here (#12):
Science Direct
There you'll also find dozens of other studies finding statistical evidence for the harm of passive smoking.
The original study found an excess risk for people living with a smoker of 24%. The re-analysis corrected this to 19% because of the adjustment to publication bias. As you can see, the EPA quickly adopted the corrected numbers.
Because of its size and its scrutiny this corrected study can be seen as the current answer on the question whether environmental smoke causes lung cancer. Because of that, we can say that any claims that no evidence exists for this causation are definitely untrue.
However, it's true that the effect sizes of passive smoking on lung cancer are surprisingly small. From the studies under the link above emerges the interesting picture that while lung cancer is the main pathology connected to active smoking (but by far not the only one) for passive smoking more important pathologies seem to be cardivasculair diseases and breast cancer.
Ahh, the WHO conspires with the World Bank to take over the world. It's all obvious to me now ~:rolleyes:Quote:
First it's not exactly to defend smoking, he also says that it's dangerous and recommends not to do it more than occasionally, however, what he wants is to put things as they're. Second, and from the source (again, not the one that you saw, but the next -the one in the hyperlink "interesting source"): "It is not surprising that the WHO is now the vehicle to expand this economy of loot at global level. But reality has not changed: while the WHO is barking its absurd tobacco-related mortality figures based on statistical assumptions dictated by a political agenda, real science still has no proof for the WHO's claims." The propaganda machine, WHO.. About the WHO study of 1998.
Come on, that's a conspiracy theory. About the WHO study of 1998: they claim the WHO lied in their press release, but I can't see in which way. The press release seems entirely correct to me.
It's not only not professional, it's dishonest. No honest reviewer would take this study as evidence that tabacco isn't a cancerogene for humans.Quote:
I agree that part was not exactly professional. About the study on rodents. That's exactly what the excerpt said, they simply couldn't, not that it's relevant because mice are rodents, and we want to know humans.
In the contrary, it's an established scientific fact that secondhand smoking causes cancer and many other health problems, as shown above. Estimates go that it kills 60,000 people in the US per year. Further there is no serious doubt in health science that smoking is one of the most important health issues in the world.Quote:
I think that it's overly demostrated that secondhand smoking, the primary issue in all this topic, has never show any scientific evidence that puts it as a significant risk factor for cancer.
The agencies who performed the tests. They stated 20 or even 40, over the 8%.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
What matters is the effect that it has on non-smokers. I could believe your word, but I've provided sources, so I'll like to know from where you're extracting this evidence of doce dependance and huge effect on society, so I can refute them.Quote:
Some passive smokers are indeed more than casual smokers. If you're living in a household with a heavy smoker, you're exposed to more tabacco smoke than a casual smoker. Of course, non-smokers like me who live alone and are exposed to tabacco smoke occasionally are not the issue. But it's established that the harm of smoke is dose dependent. That means that it's not that slight exposure has no effect but the effect is too small to be found with the usual studies. But again, that's not the issue. The issue is that smoking has a huge negative effect on the health of society.
Probably decrease by about 70%, where does it says that? For what I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the cause of something, is that condition that without it given effect X will not be present. Such as in A (C1, C2, Cn) -> B, so if condition C1 in a tests gives this characteristics, it could be said that it's THE cause. However that's not the case here, smoking is just another risk, not the cause for lung cancer, that's what agencies had led us to believe.Quote:
It would probably decrease by about 70%. And you can't have it both ways. Tabacco smoke either causes cancer or it's completely harmless. "To cause" does not mean that the effect has to appear in 100% of the cases. If we would use such a definition we would have to say that nothing causes cancer. It just miraculously appears. No cancerogene substance on earth has an effect rate on 100%. "To cause" means that the cause is connected to the effect in a causal way. The former brings the latter about. Hell, it's as if you would argue that sex doesn't cause pregnancy!
See my post above. The antecedent is not connected in a causal way in this case, just as an hipotetical condition, wich is not necessary for given consequence.Quote:
Fallacy. The presence of the consequence while absence of the antecedent doesn't refute the implication.
Cars circulate in public streets.Quote:
And releasing any of them in a pub is illegal. Your point is?
Yes but if the statistical study is pooled with many other studies, then the coeficient extracted can only be estipulative, you just only put data together and extract a conclusion from that wich is only estimative. That's what my source said. About the corrective study (btw thanks for the link) I cannot see the whole study (they ask for donations?), so I cannot dispel my doubts on bias by seeing only the conclusions. Beyond that the quote I posted talks about the revisited statistics, again it's the same source.Quote:
A meta-analysis is a statistical procedure to pool multible studies. Even if 100% of the studies had not supported the EPA's decision, a meta-analysis may come to different result because the statistical power increases. Meta-anaylses are legit procedures that are used in many fields in science. There were concerns about possible bias in this study, that is why an independent team of researchers re-analized the data adjusting for bias. They still found a significant result.
You can find a link to the study here (#12):
Science Direct
No. In a conspiracy theory you take separete facts, that seem to be connected in some way, and you say that there was a conspiracy, without leaving evidence. They conspired here, I don't know with what purpose, but they left evidence, the evidence was in their same studies. That's what the source says.Quote:
Ahh, the WHO conspires with the World Bank to take over the world. It's all obvious to me now ~:rolleyes:
Come on, that's a conspiracy theory. About the WHO study of 1998: they claim the WHO lied in their press release, but I can't see in which way. The press release seems entirely correct to me.
Well I didn't took it as evidence. However many take it as evidence that smoking causes cancer on humans, even if the study shows that that's not even true in the same rodents that it was tested.Quote:
It's not only not professional, it's dishonest. No honest reviewer would take this study as evidence that tabacco isn't a cancerogene for humans.
Again, you can keep saying that it's causative, when in reality is just another risk factor. As it stands, it's not necessary nor sufficient to produce cancer in any way, many other conditions have to be present, even more considering that cancer is a complex disease and many factors have an influence, tobacco is not the first factor, by far. For all of this, and for matters of abreviation, I remit myself to that source, it tells you everything, from cancer to ETS.Quote:
In the contrary, it's an established scientific fact that secondhand smoking causes cancer and many other health problems, as shown above. Estimates go that it kills 60,000 people in the US per year. Further there is no serious doubt in health science that smoking is one of the most important health issues in the world.
I've only little time, so I have to make it short.
The WHO has databases about tabaco victims for almost every society you want to know about. Note: these figures are not from the WHO but from the various national health agencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Ok, I'm asking you directly: is sex the cause for pregnancy?Quote:
Probably decrease by about 70%, where does it says that? For what I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the cause of something, is that condition that without it given effect X will not be present. Such as in A (C1, C2, Cn) -> B, so if condition C1 in a tests gives this characteristics, it could be said that it's THE cause. However that's not the case here, smoking is just another risk, not the cause for lung cancer, that's what agencies had led us to believe.
You can smoke on public streets.Quote:
Cars circulate in public streets.
That's right, because it's all inductive statistics. It's the same for all studies. To get descriptive statistics your sample size would have to be 6 billion people. But that's why we use error margins.Quote:
Yes but if the statistical study is pooled with many other studies, then the coeficient extracted can only be estipulative, you just only put data together and extract a conclusion from that wich is only estimative. That's what my source said.
Ok, it's clear that I won't convince you, but every reader of this discussion can decide for himself:Quote:
No. In a conspiracy theory you take separete facts, that seem to be connected in some way, and you say that there was a conspiracy, without leaving evidence. They conspired here, I don't know with what purpose, but they left evidence, the evidence was in their same studies. That's what the source says.
Either he believes the WHO, various other health agencies and practically the entire field of health science.
Or he believes Forces who claim that the WHO uses the World Bank to take away our freedom, that hundreds of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals are all "bad science" and says things like
"So, here we have a war unilaterally declared — thus an aggression — where the attacked defend themselves with whine and blunt weapons"
From their tone, you can quickly determine how valid a source they are, even if you don't have the little scientific knowledge necessary to see through their preposterous claims.
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Having followed this debate carefully, I have to say, Soulforged, that you have been well and truly pwned.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
I cannot believe the WHO after what we've been discussing and reading. Sorry.Quote:
The WHO has databases about tabaco victims for almost every society you want to know about. Note: these figures are not from the WHO but from the various national health agencies.
No. Conception in the maternal uterus is the cause for pregnancy.Quote:
Ok, I'm asking you directly: is sex the cause for pregnancy?
My, point is that it does just as bad as any other risk factor, and it's still allowed. Also if you can smoke on public streets, then the effect should be similar as when you're in pub. The conclusion should be, ban smoke from public streets too.Quote:
You can smoke on public streets.
Ok. Let's see what the source provides and perhaps no one has read it. For the last time:Quote:
That's right, because it's all inductive statistics. It's the same for all studies. To get descriptive statistics your sample size would have to be 6 billion people. But that's why we use error margins.
Quote:
EPA performed a "meta-analysis" of the studies. That is, the relative risks from the 30 studies were weighted, pooled and an "average" relative risk of 1.19 was calculated. And EPA concluded that secondhand smoke increased lung cancer risk 19 percent.
But this result was criticized because for a number of reasons, including:
Epidemiologic studies are not generally capable of reliably identifying small relative risks (i.e., less than 2.0).
None of the 30 studies used quantitative exposure data. All the studies used "guesstimated" exposure data.
The relative risk of 1.19 was not statistically significant at the conventional 95 percent level.
EPA underadjusted for the effect of smoking misclassification (i.e., the tendency for smokers to claim they are nonsmokers).
EPA (and the rest of the junk science world) chose to ignore these criticisms.
Again, no need to go there. The evidence is in the same studies, I wish I could find some, the original transcript, to see how they lied and exagerated about the results, in the conclusions.Quote:
Ok, it's clear that I won't convince you, but every reader of this discussion can decide for himself:
Either he believes the WHO, various other health agencies and practically the entire field of health science.
Or he believes Forces who claim that the WHO uses the World Bank to take away our freedom, that hundreds of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals are all "bad science" and says things like
"So, here we have a war unilaterally declared — thus an aggression — where the attacked defend themselves with whine and blunt weapons"
Yes I only posses a basic scientifical knowledge in that field. However the proposterous claims are, again, from the WHO and other agencies, and the group that tries to push anti-tabacco agenda. The source is complete, I'm sure that if any one with a little more knowledge of science than I've, reads it will understand pretty well what's the real issue about tabacco.Quote:
From their tone, you can quickly determine how valid a source they are, even if you don't have the little scientific knowledge necessary to see through their preposterous claims.
Not even close Haruchai. Note that I'm providing little from my opinion here (though it's clear by now), and almost nothing from my own pre-knowledge. It all comes to one source, as Saturnos pointed, you can choose to ignore it, as everyone else, I really don't care I don't live in those countries, when it comes here, the issue will be different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai