Quote:
|
I equate significant with major.
|
So how many people would you allow to die every year from SHS before you would be willing to ban it?
You're hung up on this one study. So completely ignore it. That's fine with me. It changes nothing. There is still objectively demonstrable scientific consensus that SHS causes increased risk of cancer, heart disease, lung disease. Even if you completely ignore that study.
In fact, this consensus existed for 20 years before that EPA study was published, as indicated by the Surgeon General's 1986 report.
Quote:
|
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.
|
SHS has certainly
not been filtered twice. That's a complete misconception of yours. Much of SHS is completely unfiltered, namely smoke that is wafting off a butt lying in an ashtray. Where did you get the idea that SHS has been twice filtered?
Quote:
|
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.
|
And the tobacco industry used to make the same point about the effects of first hand smoke, saying the studies were biased and in reality there is no harm to first hand smoke whatsoever. Do you agree with that? You should, if you are going to be logically consistent. Every criticism you have made of the SHS studies can equally be made of the first hand smoke studies.
Simply because some studies can be criticized does nothing to eliminate the scientific consensus that both active and passive smoking are harmful to your health.
Quote:
|
I could do the same thing and prove that ketchup is deadly and should be banned.
|
And if scientific consensus were determined by your one study, then you would have a point. But scientific consensus is not determined by any one study. So your point is irrelevant.
Quote:
|
I am going to argue that a non-smoker is [NOT] 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.
|
What evidence? You've questioned the evidence of one single study, and ignored the evidence of 100 other studies.
Your standards of convincing yourself that SHS is not significantly harmful are extremely low. In fact they are unreasonably low by any scientific standards.