Planning a smoking area?

Satyn · Post by **Satyn** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:17 pm

has it ever been proven that passive smoking is bad? Cos i just been reading about it and one says its bad, the other says it isnt. Ofcourse its easy to believe something is bad for you even when it isnt.

Post by **Lieva** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:18 pm

Gandelf wrote:Thing is, alcohol in moderation is beneficial. It can help to lower cholesterol. Drinking one glass of red wine a day is beneficial, because it contains anti-oxidants. Whereas smoking has no beneficial effects at all. Even if you only smoke say 10 cigarettes a week, it's still causing harm, because let's face it, the human body was not designed to inhale tobacco smoke.

the human body was not designed to do alot of things

we still do it

Post by **Lieva** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:21 pm

Satyn wrote:has it ever been proven that passive smoking is bad? Cos i just been reading about it and one says its bad, the other says it isnt. Ofcourse its easy to believe something is bad for you even when it isnt.

its never been proven like most things.
It just increases your risk of certain things.
Such as eating too much red meat increases X passive smoking increases your risk of cancer.

We are all born with the cancer gene btw. The scientists/doctors just do not know what triggers it from being a passive gene into an aggressive one. It seems that everything on the planet can help with it tho

Satyn · Post by **Satyn** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:21 pm

Lieva wrote:Whilst i agree with that, its the way people are going about it.

Just because a person smokes doesnt make them bad or a murderer but clearly, theyre are getting those labels.

A simple 'ok smoke but dont force others to do so' is fine without the 'omg you smoke youre gonna kill me and you stink' drama we have atm.

horay!

Sharkith · Post by **Sharkith** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:27 pm

Gandelf wrote:
However, apart from passive smoking causing cancer (which has been proven scientifically beyond doubt),

Gandy with all due respect this is false.

They have at best very low grade secondary evidence.

In fact it have never even been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that smoking kills. It is a public health campaign that says that.

If it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt that smoking kills the tobacco companies would have been sued to oblivion years ago. Fact is it hasn't been proven. Thats why it has never stood up on court. You are being sold a line and because of your prejudice your willing to accept it both you and Xest.

All that was proven was that Tobacco companies knew that it was addictive and they witheld that data. That is why they were successfully sued in the US. Not because it was proven smoking kills.

ON the secondary smoking it was because of the 'risk' to health and under health and safety legislation that the ban was supported. Not because secondary smoking kills.

Your all talking a right load of old bullshit on this one.

Post by **Xest** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:28 pm

[quote="Lieva"]its never been proven like most things.
It just increases your risk of certain things.
Such as eating too much red meat increases X passive smoking increases your risk of cancer.

We are all born with the cancer gene btw. The scientists/doctors just do not know what triggers it from being a passive gene into an aggressive one. It seems that everything on the planet can help with it tho ]
Wrong, it's well proven that passive smoking is bad, that it can cause things like asthma and so forth. The only thing in debate is about whether passive smoking can cause cancer and the argument generally seems to come down to how much passive smoke you inhale.

Sharkith · Post by **Sharkith** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:32 pm

Xest wrote:Wrong, it's well proven that passive smoking is bad, that it can cause things like asthma and so forth. The only thing in debate is about whether passive smoking can cause cancer and the argument generally seems to come down to how much passive smoke you inhale.

Nope it hasn't. The standard of evidence they required in this instance is very very low. We would consider most of it quite poor. For a start it is uncontrolled and on convience sampling which is subject to heavy selection bias. In other words Xest your wrong.

Post by **Xest** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:35 pm

Sharkith wrote:Nope it hasn't. The standard of evidence they required in this instance is very very low. We would consider most of it quite poor. For a start it is uncontrolled and on convience sampling which is subject to heavy selection bias. In other words Xest your wrong.

Your comments are based on a bias to argue against the institution. In other words Sharkith you're wrong.

Sharkith · Post by **Sharkith** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:38 pm

Xest wrote:Your comments are based on a bias to argue against the institution. In other words Sharkith you're wrong.

Contrary to your views I support a public ban on smoking. Not because tobbacco kills but because there might be a low grade risk to the health of people working in those establishments and because I would kind of like to avoid the smell. Once more Xest your wrong.

Sharkith · Post by **Sharkith** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:41 pm

Just to give you an example of the 'evidence' I base my decision on here is one systematics review. Pay attention to the language and note it is a 'risk' as opposed to a definite causal relationship:

[quote="Hsien-Ho Lin, Majid Ezzati, and Megan Murray"]Tobacco Smoke, Indoor Air Pollution and Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Hsien-Ho Lin,1 Majid Ezzati,2 and Megan Murray1,3,4*

1 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America , 2 Department of Population and International Health and Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America , 3 Division of Social Medicine and Health Inequalities, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America , 4 Infectious Disease Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
Thomas E Novotny, Academic Editor

Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, United States of America

Received July 27, 2006]

from here:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1769410

And just to show you how uncertain the area is here is another good example of the lack of clarity on the subject:

[quote="Svetlana V. Glinianaia, Judith Rankin, Ruth Bell, Tanja Pless-Mulloli, and Denise Howel"]
Does Particulate Air Pollution Contribute to Infant Death? A Systematic Review
Svetlana V. Glinianaia, Judith Rankin, Ruth Bell, Tanja Pless-Mulloli, and Denise Howel

Public Health Research Group, School of Population and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

There is now substantial evidence that both short- and long-term increases in ambient air pollution are associated with increased mortality and morbidity in adults and children. Children&#8217]