SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (412)8/2/2006 11:11:46 AM
From: J. C. DithersRespond to of 1695
 
John Stossel was talking about common myths on Dateline, and second-hand smoke was one of them. He researched this and found that virtually all of the studies have been conducted in families with smokers where there is constant and intense exposure.

I am not surprised by that, as studying waitresses, bartenders, office mates, etc., would create enormous control problems and would make reliability impossible.

Personally, I give zero credibility to the Surgeon General's pronouncements, because I think there is no scientific way to prove the case.



To: longnshort who wrote (412)8/2/2006 11:31:17 AM
From: RambiRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 1695
 
Even that study indicated some effect, not NO effect. Anyone who has been trapped in a small area with smokers for several hours (as I was several times on international flights before smoking was banned) knows what an irritant smoke can be- to the point of making someone with asthma or respiratory problems very ill.
But I do question whether weak, intermittent exposure is that harmful, and that's why I believe total bans in places that one isn't forced to enter is going too far.

This reminds me of the global warming debate- no definitive answer at this time. There are studies lending some support to both sides. We did need smoking control in many places, but for me, the pendulum has swung too far.



To: longnshort who wrote (412)8/2/2006 11:42:02 AM
From: RambiRespond to of 1695
 
I don't know if this is the study to which you're referring, but here's a good example of why it's so hard to get to the facts of this debate.

webmd.com

I won't recopy it in toto, but it's a rebuttal, pointing out all the research errors, and accusing one of the sponsors of being connected to Philip Morris.