Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maximusveritas
longbough, my original comment was "While you could make a case that incidental second hand smoke is not harmful enough to justify the increased public regulations we've seen in recent years, to say it's not a health hazard to anyone makes you a crackpot in my book."
You seem to be making the former case, which is reasonable. Crichton is making the latter. That's why he's a crackpot.
Whatever flaws existed in the EPA report (and that is debatable), it is still ridiculous to claim that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone. Even Philip Morris doesn't make that claim anymore.
|
Crichton is certainly wrong in stating that second hand smoke wasn't a health hazard but that's just his overstated interpretation of the history the 1993 EPA review. I was explaining the facts that probably inspired Crichton's hyperbolic extrapolation.
The simple fact is that the 1993 EPA study ERRONEOUSLY related second hand smoke to 3,000 deaths per year.
The notion that second hand smoke can lead to asthma exacerbation is not in question - but this is about the extent of "hazard" demonstrated by ETS in the EPA report. However, the claim it makes relating 3,000 deaths is an ABSOLUTE CONTRIVANCE by all scientific and statistical standards.
If you conveniently dismiss this as a "debatable" issue then you're missing the whole point. IT ISN'T A MATTER OF DEBATE. The complete tragedy is that this is a FABRICATED NOTION perpetuated by a political agenda ... NOT BY SCIENTIFIC OR STATISTICAL EVIDENCE.
I first learned about the weakness of the EPA study on a television documentary. I was completely skeptical since I was taught this in medical school. Before studying medicine I was a physics researcher working for the U.S. Department of Energy - and am very familiar with methods of research and statistics - So I examined the raw data myself and was absolutely dumfounded to discover that, in fact, the 1993 EPA report was statistical hogwash (regarding its conclusion about ETS related to 3,000 deaths per year) .... this is not an exaggeration - there's no other way to describe it. I implore you, if you have, even a fundamental familarity with statistical analysis, do look at the data yourself and you will see that I'm not exaggerating.
... it's sad, but I have a strong suspicion that most people will not posess the initiative to call me on the facts but would rather hurl baseless claims about my motives.
Maximusveritas, it isn't your post that provokes my defensive reply but some of the other ones. You, thankfully have been more cordial. And I appreciate that.