I think we are skining the same cat on this one:
Quote:
sig·nif·i·cant Audio pronunciation of "significant" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sg-nf-knt)
adj.
1. Having or expressing a meaning; meaningful.
2. Having or expressing a covert meaning; suggestive: a significant glance. See Synonyms at expressive.
3. Having or likely to have a major effect; important: a significant change in the tax laws.
4. Fairly large in amount or quantity: significant casualties; no significant opposition.
5. Statistics. Of or relating to observations or occurrences that are too closely correlated to be attributed to chance and therefore indicate a systematic relationship.
|
My thinking is along the lines of #3 - I don't see second-hand smoke as having a "major effect"
However, it appears that you are thinking along the lines of #5 - Which would be accurate.
I equate significant with major.
As to the EPA study:
Quote:
|
Last week, in North Carolina, the federal judge in the case sided with the industry, saying the EPA made serious mistakes five years ago in evaluating the risk of second-hand smoke. In his ruling, Federal District Judge William Osteen said the "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" and the "EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information."
|
If that is peer-reviewed, than it just makes me question the peers.
My point is that there are other "dangers: in the air that pose more of a hazard to us than second-hand smoke that has already been filtered twice. While I agree that the smoke is annoying, I don't think it poses the risk that some would like to think. I remembering hearing that sitting in traffic was like smoking a pack of cigarettes a day--if that is true--that would make driving in traffic more dangerous than second-hand smoke
The problem is that my point is very difficult to prove or validate. The only people willing to fund a con study to second-hand smoke would be the tobacco industry themselves, and their data would be as hard to swallow for you as the EPA study is for me.
These studies set out to prove that second-hand smoke is deadly, before having any evidence.
I could do the same thing and prove that ketchup is deadly and should be banned.
I think people put too much weight behind studies like this. They are willing to accept the "facts" without looking at how the "facts" were attained.
If there wasn't so much doubt surround the very first study (the same study everyone wants to reference) than I wouldn't have any grounds for my opinion and I would walk away with my tail between my legs. I am not going to argue that a smoker is at significant risk for lung cancer because he/she smokes; the evidence is overwhelming and the methods used in attaining the evidence are not questionable. I am going to argue that a non-smoker is at significant risk for lunk cancer because of the small amount of time in their lives they are around second-hand smoke; the evidence is very questionable.