7 ms·

People who have trouble considering this idea because of all the conditioning can take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the d

by teeja 17y ago

People who have trouble considering this idea because of all the conditioning can take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke. When I did, they fell into the noise ... within statistical error. What is the measured, documented percentage of smokers who contract lung-cancer? I never found that number. Furthermore, what other environmental factors were controlled for? These numbers may even exist somewhere. My point is that they never come up as part of the arguments. Because "everyone knows" ...

berntb 17y ago
>>take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke [fell into statistical noise when I investigated] I spent twenty seconds to help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health "Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoking ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 27% while admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change." (I saw larger claims in a BBC article sometime for the smoking bans in British pubs, but was too lazy to go find it.) Edit: 20 more seconds. >>What is the measured, documented percentage of smokers who contract lung-cancer? Here are some values for second hand smokers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Medical_and_scientific_basis_for_bans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Medical_and_scienti... "Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%." Edit 2: I went and found the BBC article (or another with the same content :-). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8267523.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8267523.stm "Smoking bans cut the number of heart attacks in Europe and North America by up to a third, two studies report. This "heart gain" is far greater than both originally anticipated and the 10% figure recently quoted by England's Department of Health. [...] The studies appear in two leading journals - Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. [...] But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year." Edit 3: Who votes up the parent comment?! :-) Less than a minute with Google shows his claims to be totally wrong.
- billswift 17y ago
  Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies. I followed up some of the (VERY FEW) links from the Wikipedia article to medical papers, and they were just what the original article said - studies that claimed improvements on this or that scale with no evidence of actual life extension.
  - berntb 17y ago
    >>Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies. Good counter to my argument that they are! :-) Both Wikipedia and BBC referenced real studies. You seems to claim that there is a conspiracy (with Wikipedia editors, BBC and the rest of the medias) against the tobacco companies? I count all conspiracy theories as "extraordinare claims", so do you have any "extraordinary support"?
    - billswift 17y ago
      I don't see any need to invoke conspiracies. Most probably they are just reading somewhat uncertain and vague data to support what they think is true (confirmation bias?).
      - berntb 17y ago
        So, it is not a conspiracy theory to assume the world's complete collection of newspapers are totally wrong in their description of the research consensus? Despite decades of big advertisement budgets from tobacco companies, saying differently? Go away, troll.

by teeja 17y ago

berntb 17y ago

>>take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke [fell into statistical noise when I investigated] I spent twenty seconds to help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health "Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoking ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 27% while admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change." (I saw larger claims in a BBC article sometime for the smoking bans in British pubs, but was too lazy to go find it.) Edit: 20 more seconds. >>What is the measured, documented percentage of smokers who contract lung-cancer? Here are some values for second hand smokers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Medical_and_scientific_basis_for_bans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Medical_and_scienti... "Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%." Edit 2: I went and found the BBC article (or another with the same content :-). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8267523.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8267523.stm "Smoking bans cut the number of heart attacks in Europe and North America by up to a third, two studies report. This "heart gain" is far greater than both originally anticipated and the 10% figure recently quoted by England's Department of Health. [...] The studies appear in two leading journals - Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. [...] But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year." Edit 3: Who votes up the parent comment?! :-) Less than a minute with Google shows his claims to be totally wrong.

billswift 17y ago
Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies. I followed up some of the (VERY FEW) links from the Wikipedia article to medical papers, and they were just what the original article said - studies that claimed improvements on this or that scale with no evidence of actual life extension.
- berntb 17y ago
  >>Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies. Good counter to my argument that they are! :-) Both Wikipedia and BBC referenced real studies. You seems to claim that there is a conspiracy (with Wikipedia editors, BBC and the rest of the medias) against the tobacco companies? I count all conspiracy theories as "extraordinare claims", so do you have any "extraordinary support"?
  - billswift 17y ago
    I don't see any need to invoke conspiracies. Most probably they are just reading somewhat uncertain and vague data to support what they think is true (confirmation bias?).
    - berntb 17y ago
      So, it is not a conspiracy theory to assume the world's complete collection of newspapers are totally wrong in their description of the research consensus? Despite decades of big advertisement budgets from tobacco companies, saying differently? Go away, troll.