GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 329,715
Threads: 115,665
Posts: 2,204,933
Welcome to our newest member, sophiaptt543
» Online Users: 1,648
2 members and 1,646 guests
No Members online
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 01-09-2008, 11:47 PM
JonoBN41 JonoBN41 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Eastern L.I., NY
Posts: 1,161
This second-hand smoke business is hysterical, and I mean that. People assume now that it's genuinely harmful.

In 2006 the U.S. Surgeon General called a press conference and practically pounded on the podium in order to impress upon us all that second-hand smoke is harmful, and that there is no safe level of exposure.

There are safe levels of all kinds of nasties, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, biphenyls, PCBs, - you name it. But not smoke.

He said that second-hand smoke could account for as many as 3,600 deaths per year in the U.S. Notice the words "could" and "as many as".

The account of this press conference was reported by ABC News, which concluded with the statistic, apparently meant to add drama to the story, that each year 245 million Americans are exposed to second-hand smoke.

Okay, let's do the math. Dividing 3,600 by 245 million, we get .0000146 or .00146%. That's not even two thousandths of one percent.

As any statistician will tell you, that number is not only statistically insignificant, it pretty much proves the safety of second-hand smoke.

But all these studies and meta studies aside, remember that cigarette smoking was very early identified as causing lung cancer and heart disease for the very reason that smokers got it, and non-smokers didn't. If in fact second-hand smoke had had a similar effect on everyone, we would still be trying to figure out what was causing it.

Smoking bans are an agenda, and are not based in scientific fact.
__________________
LCA


"Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong."...Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-10-2008, 12:21 AM
macallan25 macallan25 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,036
Just because you don't have a bunch of deaths "proving" the deadliness of second hand smoke does not disprove the fact that second hand smoke is not in your personal health's best interest.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-10-2008, 11:16 AM
KSig RC KSig RC is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonoBN41 View Post
But all these studies and meta studies aside, remember that cigarette smoking was very early identified as causing lung cancer and heart disease for the very reason that smokers got it, and non-smokers didn't. If in fact second-hand smoke had had a similar effect on everyone, we would still be trying to figure out what was causing it.
Not really - the connection between smoking and lung cancer came in two separate but related prongs, one dealing with actual laboratory studies using live tissue (see: "tar-painting" studies on mice) and one dealing with epidemiological evidence (such as the NCI's Monograph series, found here.

Now, you're trying to say that epidemiological evidence should have been clouded or subverted completely if second-hand smoke also causes cancer. However, this is likely false, if you consider that active smoking is considerably more dangerous than passive (or second-hand) smoking - this increase in scale would likely be sufficient to find the smoking/cancer link on its own. This is not a sufficient condition to claim that passive smoking is not dangerous - after all, there are other kinds of lung cancer as well. Just because we can separate smoking from, say, asbestos exposure, this doesn't mean that asbestos no longer is a 'cause' of lung cancers (mesothelioma, to be precise, but the point remains).

It's not enough to get cute with a statement like "If second-hand smoke had an effect similar to smoking . . ." because that's not the issue. In fact, if passive smoking is even 1/100th as dangerous as active smoking, it becomes a public health hazard. The science isn't perfect, but to deny the effects of inhaling smoke for second-hand users is as laughable as denying the effects of the same action on active smokers.

Last edited by KSig RC; 01-10-2008 at 11:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-10-2008, 11:39 AM
LeslieAGD LeslieAGD is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,867
Send a message via AIM to LeslieAGD
I love the smoking bans. I hope Michigan adopts one soon.
__________________
AGD
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-10-2008, 04:04 PM
Tom Earp Tom Earp is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Kansas City, Kansas USA
Posts: 23,584
Oh, lest we forget, Radon causes cancer.

Now, how will the Government tax it?

Well first, the drug companies will bottle it, sell it after it gets approved by the FDA and some one will start making money from it.

If you feed lab mice enough water, how will that affect them?
__________________
LCA


LX Z # 1
Alumni
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-10-2008, 04:11 PM
nittanyalum nittanyalum is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: location, location... isn't that what it's all about?
Posts: 4,206
^^^What in the hell are you talking about?

First of all, apples meet oranges.

And secondly, if you were actually trying to make a 'point', it was lost in the jibberish.

We get it, Tom, you smoke and like it. Keep puffing away.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-10-2008, 04:41 PM
Drolefille Drolefille is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,578
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!
__________________
From the SigmaTo the K!
Polyamorous, Pansexual and Proud of it!
It Gets Better
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-10-2008, 04:48 PM
nittanyalum nittanyalum is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: location, location... isn't that what it's all about?
Posts: 4,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille View Post
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!
(had to totally "google" it first, but) LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-10-2008, 05:30 PM
Drolefille Drolefille is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,578
I got my 8th grade classmates to sign a petition to ban DHMO.

I'm such a nerd.
__________________
From the SigmaTo the K!
Polyamorous, Pansexual and Proud of it!
It Gets Better
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-10-2008, 07:33 PM
macallan25 macallan25 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Earp View Post
Oh, lest we forget, Radon causes cancer.

Now, how will the Government tax it?

Well first, the drug companies will bottle it, sell it after it gets approved by the FDA and some one will start making money from it.

If you feed lab mice enough water, how will that affect them?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-10-2008, 09:15 PM
GeekyPenguin GeekyPenguin is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,971
Maybe I can send this post to the Wisconsin legislature and they'll finally pass the ban so that stupid FIBs who can't make a good point will stop crossing the border.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-10-2008, 09:52 PM
Low C Sharp Low C Sharp is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 678
Quote:
I think everyone has to agree that this law is right on that "personal freedoms" line.
We do? That's news to me as a lawyer.

You can't run a restaurant where you let rats crawl around in the cooler. It doesn't matter whether you warn all your customers about the presence of rats; it doesn't matter whether consumers have a choice between ratty and rat-free establishments; it doesn't matter whether science has shown definitive proof that rat droppings in food causes cancer. That restaurant is a nuisance and a danger to public health, and you have to close, period.

So where's your outrage about health inspection of restaurants and the infringement of the constitutional right to sell and buy filthy food? Maybe you realize that this kind of rule is comfortably within the police power of the state. Just like the smoking ban.
________
Marijuana card

Last edited by Low C Sharp; 09-20-2011 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-10-2008, 10:33 PM
jmagnus jmagnus is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: From Rockford IL but go to school at Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Posts: 351
Send a message via AIM to jmagnus
Penguin, don't even go there. If it wasn't for us FIBs, you Cheeseheads would still be trying to grow corn on rocks
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-11-2008, 03:59 AM
PeppyGPhiB PeppyGPhiB is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 3,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille View Post
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!
LOL I love jokes for nerds.
__________________
Gamma Phi Beta
Love. Labor. Learning. Loyalty.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-11-2008, 04:12 AM
amycat412 amycat412 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,847
Send a message via AIM to amycat412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchkin03 View Post
As a lifelong asthmatic, I support any and every public smoking ban.
ME TOO!

CA has had it for YEARS and it is WONDERFUL!! I was in Salt Lake City last week and after an hour in a smoke filled bar, my wheezing self needed to be outside in the 20 degree weather gulping fresh air.

Didn't Dana Reeves die of lung cancer due to second hand smoke? I feel like I remember reading she was never a smoker...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Smoking Still? preciousjeni Chit Chat 62 12-29-2008 06:51 PM
Smoking Aces AKA2D '91 Alpha Kappa Alpha 6 01-29-2007 10:19 PM
thanks for smoking FSUZeta Entertainment 18 04-28-2006 02:12 PM
smoking? JMUduke Chit Chat 29 07-14-2002 08:24 PM
smoking CRMSNTiDEGRL717 Greek Life 24 04-12-2001 12:58 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.