Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Locobot
Longbough, like I've pointed out with Crichton above you yourself have cherry picked evidence and seek to limit the discussion of secondhand smoke to only being a problem as a carcinogen or a smelly nuisance. What about all the other negative health impacts? Are they all the results of faulty studies?
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
Did you forget to disclose your position at a cigarette manufacturer or something? There isn't even mention of secondhand smoke as a cancer causing agent on the EPA page above. |
I didn't claim that ETS has NO health consequences whatsoever (If I gave that impression it was unintentional). FYI - Reactive Airways Disease (e.g. asthma exacerbation and bronchitis) are
acute conditions -
not chronic ones. Where the EPA was taken to task was their
central claim that ETS was responsible for 3,000 deaths per year - that's the "conclusion" that people cite like gospel. Nobody is banning smoking in public because of asthma exacerbation or the possiblity of SIDS - the argument is about increasing chances for COPD and CAD.
You are absolutely right, however, in that the EPA report did not relate ETS as a cause of lung cancer - If I gave that impression I apologize. The second quote which says "3,000 cancer deaths", was taken from an article from the CATO institute - clearly an erroneous statement on the part of the writer. I just cut and pasted the quote - I should have checked it. However, that same misstatement isn't a part of Judge Osteen's statements.
Let me repeat - the only thing I said was that the central conclusion of the 1993 EPA report, that second hand smoke, is responsible for 3,000 deaths per year is a faulty conclusion based on manipulated data. If you're going to counter that statement please address the issue.
Not all beliefs grow from political agendas, buddy. So don't presume you know a thing about my politics. Show me some facts that substantiate the figues in question and I'll be happy to become more enlightened.