Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2015, 08:58 PM
Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
So, tonight, the wife and I have been watching Penn & Teller: Bullshit. Great fucking show. Penn Jillete is like a younger, much more vulgar, James Randi. Brilliant.
Anyway, after watching some hilarious episodes, like one about some woo-fuckers who believe they channel dolphin spirits Hobo , we watch one about how the movement to ban smoking is based on a paper from the EPA from '93 titled "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking". A federal court in North Carolina ruled that the study by the EPA was faulty, and that they "cherry-picked" data. The courts findings coincided with a congressional analysis from '95, which questioned the validity of the EPA's study. When I first heard this, I was utterly shocked. My first reaction, naturally, was to say, "of course secondhand smoke is bad!". After reading up a little more, I don't know... All of the health organizations who agree that secondhand smoke causes all the respiratory issues, such as risk for lung cancer, based their decision off of the EPA's study in '93. What the actual fuqqqqq.... Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
24-09-2015, 10:07 PM
RE: Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
From what I remember from reading Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt, there was a concern that the EPA used a 90% confidence interval threshold rather than the conventional 95% confidence interval threshold; since the latter admitted a majority of papers as significant whereas the latter only admitted a fraction. To say that a result is significant at the 90% confidence level means that, assuming the null hypothesis to be true (i.e. assuming secondhand smoking is harmless) there is only a 10% probability that the result was due to chance; likewise, significance at 95% confidence level says there's only a 5% probability the result was due to chance Realistically, the reason why there was such a stark difference between the 90% confidence level and 95% confidence level probably came down to the fact the samples being used weren't truly simple random samples; thus, the confidence intervals were a rather crude approximation.

In either case, because of this, the industry made a big deal about the fact there might be a 10% chance that secondhand smoke wasn't proven harmful instead of a 5% chance. It was dumb. Really really dumb.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like ZoraPrime's post
24-09-2015, 10:19 PM
RE: Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
(24-09-2015 08:58 PM)EppurSiMuove Wrote:  So, tonight, the wife and I have been watching Penn & Teller: Bullshit. Great fucking show. Penn Jillete is like a younger, much more vulgar, James Randi. Brilliant.
Anyway, after watching some hilarious episodes, like one about some woo-fuckers who believe they channel dolphin spirits Hobo , we watch one about how the movement to ban smoking is based on a paper from the EPA from '93 titled "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking". A federal court in North Carolina ruled that the study by the EPA was faulty, and that they "cherry-picked" data. The courts findings coincided with a congressional analysis from '95, which questioned the validity of the EPA's study. When I first heard this, I was utterly shocked. My first reaction, naturally, was to say, "of course secondhand smoke is bad!". After reading up a little more, I don't know... All of the health organizations who agree that secondhand smoke causes all the respiratory issues, such as risk for lung cancer, based their decision off of the EPA's study in '93. What the actual fuqqqqq.... Consider

I have seen death certificates that listed smoking as being related to the cause of death for people who smoked less than a pack of cigarettes in their entire lives. Now I don't doubt the second hand smoke is harmful.....I do doubt any government statistics on the matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heywood Jahblome's post
24-09-2015, 10:22 PM
RE: Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
(24-09-2015 10:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have seen death certificates that listed smoking as being related to the cause of death for people who smoked less than a pack of cigarettes in their entire lives. Now I don't doubt the second hand smoke is harmful.....I do doubt any government statistics on the matter.

[Image: wpid-its-a-conspiracy.jpeg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 10:26 PM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2015 10:33 PM by ZoraPrime.)
RE: Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
(24-09-2015 10:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have seen death certificates that listed smoking as being related to the cause of death for people who smoked less than a pack of cigarettes in their entire lives. Now I don't doubt the second hand smoke is harmful.....I do doubt any government statistics on the matter.

the government didn't do the studies; the EPA just did a systematic review on the available studies. This sort of systematic review (i.e. tally up all relevant publications and find what fraction are significant at some confidence level) is so methodological that the denial focused in on the one degree of freedom the EPA had: which is setting the confidence level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like ZoraPrime's post
25-09-2015, 12:57 AM
RE: Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
(24-09-2015 10:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have seen death certificates that listed smoking as being related to the cause of death for people who smoked less than a pack of cigarettes in their entire lives. Now I don't doubt the second hand smoke is harmful...

To the point of this thread, do you have data on their exposure to second-hand smoke?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 02:22 AM
RE: Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
Let's just smoke next to babies then Smile

(24-09-2015 08:58 PM)EppurSiMuove Wrote:  All of the health organizations who agree that secondhand smoke causes all the respiratory issues, such as risk for lung cancer, based their decision off of the EPA's study in '93.

A simple Google search gives me more than one more recent study.

Also check this out




My explanation? Smokers are so butthurt they can't smoke in some places anymore that they'll say anything to make it seem like smoking is ok.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like undergroundp's post
25-09-2015, 04:56 AM
RE: Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
(25-09-2015 12:57 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 10:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have seen death certificates that listed smoking as being related to the cause of death for people who smoked less than a pack of cigarettes in their entire lives. Now I don't doubt the second hand smoke is harmful...

To the point of this thread, do you have data on their exposure to second-hand smoke?

I don't. I am just suspect of the data that they are using when they make claims like.

Quote:Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statisti...ral_facts/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 05:07 AM
RE: Is "secondhand smoke" a myth?
(25-09-2015 04:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 12:57 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  To the point of this thread, do you have data on their exposure to second-hand smoke?

I don't. I am just suspect of the data that they are using when they make claims like.

Quote:Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statisti...ral_facts/

You didn't bother to look at ANY of the MANY links to independent studies in my above post, Blowjob. How typical. What a fool.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: