Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (52434)	10/24/2006 4:57:51 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

From just the standpoint of common sense, one thing I don't see is how people can agree that smoke drawn into the lungs directly through a filter is harmful, but somehow the smoke that one breathes in through the air in a room full of smokers supposedly isn't. Sure, the smoke inhaled by the smoker is more concentrated. But there is plenty of science to support the fact that some substances can be harmful when inhaled in very low concentrations. I also think its harmful, but how much exposure is needed to cause measurable harm and how great is the harm. But is also pretty sure that the harm is exaggerated in some circles. On the other hand, given the difficulty of absolutely proving the point one way or another, how do you know it hasn't in fact been understated? Because if it was understated to any great extent that would mean you practically drop dead from being in a room with smoker.

To: Cogito who wrote (52434)	10/24/2006 6:10:19 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Respond to of 90947

Allen, I would be happy to leave the smoking issue the way you stated it: The danger may have been exaggerated. On the other hand, given the difficulty of absolutely proving the point one way or another, how do you know it hasn't in fact been understated? In other words, it could be either way, and science is not likely to be able to prove which is correct. With that being the situation, leave science and government out of it. Another aspect of this is that even with all the efforts to curtail smoking, either by government fiat or by what amounts to propaganda campaigns, the incidence of respiratory problems with children is higher than ever. It is startling to see the number of kids in elementary school that carry inhalers. Once again it is hard to pin down why so many kids have asthma, allergies, and similar conditions, but it is just possible that it has to do with underdeveloped immune systems. And in turn, it is just possible that the underlying reason is our fervor to isolate children from all contaminants that stimulate the immune system. In short, we may be creating a nation of bubble babies and children who are nakedly vulnerable to the first contaminant that crosses their path. For all we know, the smoking households so common when you and I were children, may have been a good thing for us after all, as well as all that blue smoke in the air from tailpipes. Anyway, as I said, my main gripe is scientific studies with a pre-ordained conclusion. BTW I myself enjoy restaurants more now without the smoking! JC