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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (20083)	4/11/1998 12:02:00 AM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Respond to of 108807

Mike, No, I didn't read that article. Is it online? I have a couple of theories on why smoking and its younger brother, second-hand smoke, have been pushed as life's prime evils and hazards. But then, everybody tells me I'm in "denial." <vbg> Holly

To: greenspirit who wrote (20083)	4/11/1998 1:04:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, IBD is so conservative that when I called them to cancel my subscription, and they asked why, and I told them it was because the editorial policy was so right-wing it made me sick, but that they probably weren't used to hearing that, the lady reassured me that in fact they hear it frequently!!! So my guess is they are simply supporting the tobacco companies. However, I have an open mind, and would love to see the research they refer to, if they do. Could you post it? Oh, I hope it explains why bar and restaurant waitresses in California have the highest rates of heart disease and cancer of any women's job, also. Do you think there is something besides cigarette smoke that is toxic? Commercial floor cleaner or something? Incidentally, did you find the url for all those sex change operations on prisoners yet? Christine

To: greenspirit who wrote (20083)	4/11/1998 3:47:00 PM
From: Tinman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Bad news. The authors of the study responded to the article as published in some newspapers. Apparently what the study said was that although the study did show some health impact of second hand smoke, due to the size of the sample in that particular study, the results could not be considered statistically significant. The news item took the statement out of context to say that no health problems were caused by second-hand smoke. Sorry. It's still a filthy habit, but you'll get over it.