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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pogeu Mahone who wrote (115263)	8/26/2008 10:11:29 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 132070

zeus, I can't comment much without the knowledge needed to verify whether the study has any value. There are many factors that can impact heart attack rates. Other things may have changed. There are also agendas involved in studies on both sides. I don't think it would too hard to find a study that suggests the opposite. If you believe that second hand smoke is such a big risk factor, then you should avoid it. I think crossing Queens Blvd in NY is a bigger risk factor, but I have no intention of staying home or avoiding any establishment that allows smoking if that's where I want to go. IMO, both are too small to matter. Other than that, the debate was never about whether second hand smoke is harmful. On that, I have an unscientific opinion based on the amount of smoke typically inhaled by a non-smoker, the temperature of the smoke being inhaled, the intensity of the smoke being inhaled etc... relative to life long smokers who get both first and second hand smoke regularly and usually have a long list of other bad health habits. The debate was about freedom.