Planning a smoking area?

[Lieva]

Lieva check this link out - the details are further down the page.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergDoctorTrial.html

ahh so thats what that trial was about..

I had heard of it...
when they had said 'war crimes' i just assumed nasty treatment not actual medical experimentation..

[Xest]

I think you will find Xest that citing the argument I used again only proves I was right.

Lieva check this link out - the details are further down the page.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergDoctorTrial.html

But Wikipedia says passive smoking is damaging so it must be true! It causes death, disease and disability. Look at all the references demonstrating otherwise!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

Posting random websites doesn't really prove anything, however as the Wikipedia has links to more "proof" than you've been able to provide and also has quotes from the Tobacco industry accepting that there are at least some risks to passive smoking then, well, you're wrong Sharkith. Oh and you're wrong too Tuthmes

[Sharkith]

Posting random websites doesn't really prove anything, however as the Wikipedia has links to more "proof" than you've been able to provide and also has quotes from the Tobacco industry accepting that there are at least some risks to passive smoking then, well, you're wrong Sharkith. Oh and you're wrong too Tuthmes

Its so funny when you get found out Xest. I said I accept that there might be risks. Your the one who was witch hunting earlier in this thread saying it was a proven fact.

Surely we don't need to dig out basic introductory scientific method notes now do we?

You said it 'causes' I said it is a risk even the systematic reviews which I provideed you abstracts of only talk of risks. Not causes...

If smoking 'causes' death prove it. I said there were most likely risks. A risk is not a cause. Sorry xest you have been found wanting.

Lieva those trials are why we have ethical codes. They are also the reason why Xest was most definitly wrong at the start of this thread. There is not definitive proof. Just communities of scientists agreeing on standards of proof.

[Xest]

Who's been found out exactly? You're the one stating that there was no proof that passive smoking causes any problems at all, I mentioned that whilst passive smoking hasn't been proven to definitely cause cancer, it has been proven to cause other problems like asthma.

Looks like you're the one who's scared that they've been found out Sharkith, too much evidence for you to dispute in that article full of plenty of references? As I say, even some of the tobacco companies accept passive smoking can cause asthma and such, are you really going to try and tell me it's a massive conspiracy theory and that the tobacco industry actually wants to finish itself off for pure self-harming pleasure?

You couldn't provide any evidence with your first comment and simply stated your opinion and inferred from your opinion that I'm wrong, when I pushed you you found one website to back you up, now I've countered, demonstrating that you're wrong you're slipping back to the personal attacks. Nice.

[Sharkith]

Its obvious your having trouble with basic science. Demonstrating a cause and effect relationship is extremely difficult. There is no definitive proof in any of these studeis that smoking causes cancer or asthma. Why Xest?

Because the standard for proof requires continual and extended randomised controlled double blind studies. In order to conduct such studies that the highest level of proof can be ascertained you would have to do a study that would be worse than what the Nazi's did. To get proof is impossible.

So what happens. I mean even a basic student in science knows that your next best thing is population based studies. The problem with these is confounding variables and representation issues. Basically all these studies can show is a statistically increased probability of harm. In short all they can show is an elevated risk.

This never ever means that smoking causes cancer or harm. It simply means what I said there is an elevated risk of harm but the evidence is unclear. So in short your were wrong at the start and you continue to be wrong. Drop the term cause from your arguments and I think you will find it very easy for us to agree.

[Sharkith]

Now the next point that you need to learn is that when the best evidence is not available scientists often get together to agree in the face of consistent risks that something causes something. This is what happened with tobacco. Basically it was a political decision that had mroe to do with an anti tobbacco lobby than science.

Like I said if proof was definitive then show me Xest where the tobacco companies were successfully sued for killing people. They weren't. Why? Well because there is no proof Xest. The proof would not stand the test of a court of law.

[Sharkith]

Oh and one other point. Even your Wiki article proves I am right. I can continue the lesson if you want me to. I think you will also find I was not attacking you personally, all I said was you are wrong.

[Xest]

Unfortunately, as animal testing isn't banned, we can prove a cause and effect relationship.

Are you also trying to argue now that there is no proof that smoking even causes cancer for smokers themselves now as well? The basic science demonstrates otherwise, the very fact that a) some of these chemicals can cause cancer when they enter the human body in large enough quantities, b) smoking causes these chemicals to enter the body, some of the chemicals have long enough half-lifes to stay in the body long enough to build up to cancer-causing levels.

It's really not difficult.

Like I said if proof was definitive then show me Xest where the tobacco companies were successfully sued for killing people. They weren't.

You can't sue a company that sells a product saying "smoking kills" on it if it kills you, even in idiot America where law suits are commonplace this wouldn't work.

[Sharkith]

Animal models are insufficient evidence for conclusive proof in the human model. I am sure you know that. Once more not conclusive proof, not by any means. As Takits and others have correctly said there are many many complicating factors and we don't fully understand the mechanisms. Its why we correctly stick to the language of risk because that language is the appropriate language.

Another thing you are wrong on is that in fact there have been many cases where tobacco companies have been sued for 'causing cancer'. Not once have they been forced to pay out.

The only reason why they were caught out was because they had witheld evidence that smoking was addictive and through an odd caveat in US law this was actually against the law. They were successfully sued because smoking is addictive and they hid the evidence.

They have not yet to date been successfully sued for causing cancer. Because the proof is simply not there.

What you are buying into is the 'agreements' such as the first reference in the heavily biased Wiki article that some public health scientists have put in place to put political pressure on governments. I have no problem with you buying into that Xest. What I have problems is when someone claims something is based purely on scientific fact when the facts are in 'fact' otherwise.

My decision to support the ban on smoking was more to do with ethics than the scientific proof. I simply feel it is not right to put people at 'risk' but the dilemma is that I cannot avoid doing that anyway. It is just in this instance we could do something about it and that is why it has got so much support politically.

This is about politics more than science and we should be honest about that rather than trying to make invalid truth claims.

[Xest]

Another thing you are wrong on is that in fact there have been many cases where tobacco companies have been sued for 'causing cancer'. Not once have they been forced to pay out.

You can't sue a tobacco company for suffering ill effects due to passive smoking, only the individual responsible for causing the passive smoking. You can't sue for suffering cancer, because it explains the dangers on the packet. There have been cases where employees have been able to sue their employer for putting them at risk by not making smokers use a separate area to smoke in away from other employees however.

It's similar to weapons, you can't sue Browning if someone shoots you with a Browning gun only the person who shot you, you can't sue Browning if you shoot yourself with a Browning weapon.

What you are buying into is the 'agreements' such as the first reference in the heavily biased Wiki article that some public health scientists have put in place to put political pressure on governments. I have no problem with you buying into that Xest. What I have problems is when someone claims something is based purely on scientific fact when the facts are in 'fact' otherwise.

You do realised Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and that there is therefore no reason that the same article wouldn't have comments from those supporting smoking in the "Controversy" section providing their comments have plenty of valid references cited? Or are you suggesting that the number of scientists who argue that smoking causing harm is inconclusive are an absolute minority and if so doesn't that tell you something?

I'm not entirely sure why you're so convinced that it's entirely a political issue, as has been pointed out the goverment benefits more from tobacco taxes than they would without them, whilst it would take strain off the NHS (oh but what has the NHS got to do with it? smoking is harmless!) it wouldn't reduce NHS costs enough to make up for the loss in tobacco revenue.