Quote:
|
Originally Posted by matthew330
2. Of all these "peer reviewed" studies cited, even the NIH concedes (aside from all of the links, correlations, and associations) that they "don't know what amount, if any, exposure, is safe" . Well damn, this would be this easiest question to answer, no?. As many #'s as were thrown out in some of the studies cited, they were social studies, and as such not controlled. You cannot study the effects of a toxin on an individual, by social regional statistics. We are talking about a very specific toxin. Throw a couple of mice in a cage, feed them second hand smoke - there's your answer.
|
No, it wouldn't be the easiest question to answer.
First, mice are not men. Infomation gained from mice is very uncertain when applied to humans.
This is a chronic exposure problem, not a single-instance of toxin problem.
Second, human trials are clearly unethical. They have reason to believe it kills. You don't kill your patients.
Your "point" is just an assertion of faith.
I don't worry about second hand smoke. I don't go into bars/restaurants where people smoke, and I don't live with smokers. Those smokers I know don't smoke indoors, or in high density in areas of forced traffic that I travel through. They are polite.
Kill yourself all you want. Just don't breath toxins into other people's lungs. It's a pretty simple ethical rule.