Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
This is the EPA study that took the accepted methodology for determining the number of deaths per year from active smoking, and applying that exact same methodology for determining the number of deaths per year from passive smoking.
So if you accept the fact that active smoking causes x number of deaths per year from lung cancer, you should also accept that passive smoking causes y(less than x) number of deaths per year from lung cancer.
The two results use exactly the same methodology, so it is logically inconsistent to accept one and attack the other.
|
They do not use the same methodology.
I went through the brain damage last night of actually reading some of these second-hand smoke studies and here is the methodology:
1) We know inhaling "mainstream" tobacco smoke (MTS) and causes cancer, heart disease, etc.
2) We then assume that ETS (environmental tobacco smoke), is bad. We don't know how bad, we can only guess, but we are sure it is bad, but once again, we can't really measure how bad it is or at what level it is bad, if any level at all, we just know it is bad.
So, in other words, they have no clue how much "bad stuff" a non-smoker takes in when around ETS. However, since ETS is bad, we can assume that it does this.....the word assume comes up an awful lot in these studies.
That is not the same methodology at all.
Now, the one methodology that they do use consistently is to use, as a primary reference (every study I read did this) the EPA study that was struck down in court.
So.....
We have assumptions.
We have guesses.
We use faulty references.
And.....how again do we come to the conclusion that all of this is factual science?
Here is my favorite part: According to these studies, more people die from SHS exposure outside the home, than by exposure inside the home.
In other words, if you are a non-smoker and you live with a smoker, you have less of a chance (around 600 of the 3,000 deaths attributed to SHS were from non-smokers living with smokers) of getting lung cancer than a person who gets exposure to ETS in public.
What??????
And it gets even better: Do you know why they say this? Because of tolerance. The studies said that the body has the ability to build up tolerance against carcinogens.
I mean, c'mon. This stuff is full of holes. And if a non-scientist can see it, why can't you.
If ETS or SHS is as bad as you want it to be, how in the hell could you buy the fact that being in public is more dangerous than living in a closed space, with a smoker.
Wanna know what I think?
No? Well, I'm gonna tell you anyway.
Something else is causing the cancer of these non-smokers and it ain't cigarette smoke.
But guess what, they have no way of knowing that.
This is junk science, pure and simple.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
It is also true that they don't know what amount, if any, of cigarette smoking, is safe.
Does that then imply that cigarette smoking must be safe?
|
Nope, but it sure throws the whole SHS thing into doubt though, don't it.
Do you see the common theme here for the "science" of second-hand smoke?
Guesses, assumptions and a whole lot of "don't knows".