Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
No, I didn't think you were playing gotcha--I got caught up in my own verbal problem.
Anyways...
Do you find it odd that the one study that is used most often as a reference is flawed?
i.e.
From the above PBS link.
This is what really makes me wonder about how serious the "dangers" are.
If the study that started this whole ball o' wax is off the mark....and then the rest use it as a launching point.....couldn't you at least see why I question this?
Anyway, who would be suicidal enough (other than the tobacco industry) to fund a study to counter the second-hand argument?
As I said before, I hate second-hand smoke, it bugs the piss out of me, so I don't think that my mindset is so set that I couldn't be convinced if there was a "serious" problem. However, if second-hand smoke is less dangerous than living in L.A., then I don't get the whole "ban smoking" thing.
|
I don't understand your logic on this, KMA. I hope you don't interpret this as condescension, but why do you believe that the first study (referenced in the first link) is a "springboard" for other studies?
The only reason it's the first citation is because it came first in the paper, presumably because it was chronologically first within the series the authors reviewed. But the thing that bothers me is that you seem to be thinking that, and this is just ceding that the first study was even bogus for the sake of asking you the next question, an earlier study being tainted would somehow impugn the rest of a series of independent studies, from around the globe, no less.
The later studies don't hinge on the validity of the first study.
To answer your question as to why one would study the harms of second hand smoke versus just general curiousity about the smoke is a very odd notion to me and perhaps any other scientist. Unless you are going to dispute that cigaratte smoke is related to those diseases, how would you then wonder whether the smoke coming off the cigarette doesn't in some way harm people inhaling it? The logical question would be, how much? Not whether. The same chemicals going into the lungs of smokers are wisping off into the air, minus whatever protection the filter provides.
I smoked for over ten years and I have an occasional cigarette probably once a month or every few weeks depending on my company. I don't see how you could discard a meta-analysis with 52 references because your assessment that one study from that list is flawed.