0

Studies have been done and experiments that prove some of the effects of second hand smoke. That is the definition of proof. If you want to deny that then you will lose your own credibility. Deny it only if you can disprove it yourself. But the studies have been done and it has been shown that there are negative effects of second hand smoke. From now on declare it proven and stop asking us to prove it anymore. Before you do, try to prove to us that second hand smoke is not harmful. I could go to more websites and find more proof if I wanted but I don't feel like wasting my time.

0

Studies have been done and experiments that prove some of the effects of second hand smoke. That is the definition of proof. If you want to deny that then you will lose your own credibility. Deny it only if you can disprove it yourself. But the studies have been done and it has been shown that there are negative effects of second hand smoke. From now on declare it proven and stop asking us to prove it anymore. Before you do, try to prove to us that second hand smoke is not harmful. I could go to more websites and find more proof if I wanted but I don't feel like wasting my time.

I've come the closest to doing just that. There's the "proof" that is a meta-analysis of prior studies to which I posted a link. Earlier I had posted a criticism of this and derivative works, one that states,

To put the WHO results in their proper perspective, note that the relative risk of lung cancer for persons who drink whole milk is 2.4. That is, the increased risk of contracting lung cancer from whole milk is 140 percent—more than eight times the 17 percent increase from secondhand smoke.

Bush is never ever going to let us go anywhere near socialism. We aren't close now anymore than we were in the past two hundred thirty years.

I can't imagine anything in the current US government that even remotely resembles what the founders were trying to do, and pretty much a lot of the things they were trying to prevent it from becoming.

And if you hadn't noticed Bush is a very lame duck.

0

@sk8ndestroy14
I asume you are writing concerning Dave's latest comment?.
Do you realize he is not dening anything, but pointing out some interesting ways how these studies gets propagated?

0

Let's suppose that the EPA has data that says something like this in regard to something other than ETS:

A number of exhaust hydrocarbons are also toxic, with the potential to cause cancer.

Would a ban be in order for the benefit of public health?

0

"Smoking causes 90% of all cancers. It is a major cause of throat cancer, stroke, coronary heart disease and erectile dysfunction,” says Dr Kuppusamy Iyawoo, Head of the Institute of Respiratory Medicine.
“Smoking is also dangerous to family and friends. About 75% of cigarette smoke is released into the environment as second-hand smoke, which increases the risk of lung cancer,” he adds

0

Here is a very ligitimate website that includes professors and doctors. In it is information (involving more studies) that show how harmful second hand smoke can be.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/smoking/cloggedartery.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/smoking/shsmokeadults.cfm&h=224&w=225&sz=53&hl=en&start=20&tbnid=Drqr1rSgcTFj_M:&tbnh=108&tbnw=108&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsecond%2Bhand%2Bsmoke%2Blung%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den

Breathing second hand smoke at home or at work increases your chances of developing lung cancer by 20% to 30%.

0

conclusion:

thank god in Honduras stuff like that will (most likely) never happed... haha!!! hurray for me!!!

for all of those who are being screwed up with this law... haha!!! losers!!!

0

I've come the closest to doing just that. There's the "proof" that is a meta-analysis of prior studies to which I posted a link. Earlier I had posted a criticism of this and derivative works, one that states,

... Sk8 is right, there is enough evidence in the scientific community to effectively prove that second hand smoke is harmful. Now stop with all your lame come backs like, "Well, uh- prove it." (again?) "Der, wel um.. cars can cause harm, should we just ban those too?" (Um ya, Smoking harms people, but can be easily prevented. The exhausts from cars cannot be as easily prevented as people need cars, and use them daily. We are, however, trying to reduce gas emissions and air pollution.) Bottom line: Quit the crap. Your arguments suck, and you only say the same thing over and over again.

I can't imagine anything in the current US government that even remotely resembles what the founders were trying to do, and pretty much a lot of the things they were trying to prevent it from becoming.

Yea, um.. its called time. You see, as time passes laws and customs must be updated to better adapt to the ever changing fields of science and technology. You think the founding fathers ever perceived we would be such a powerful nation? Or that we would have street lights? Or that we wouldn't use horses as our primary means of transportation? Or that elections would be almost entirely electronic? Need I go on?

And if you hadn't noticed Bush is a very lame duck.

Naw, ya think? What president in his last term in office isn't?

0

... Sk8 is right, there is enough evidence in the scientific community to effectively prove that second hand smoke is harmful.

If it's "science", why are the answers so different? Do you get different answers for calculating, say, velocity? Should that be expected?

Bottom line: Quit the crap. Your arguments suck, and you only say the same thing over and over again.

Oh, most definitely. As I've hinted, that was partially intentional. I was wondering what it took to get young people to actually think and look things up. Or perhaps consider how simple things like "Ban Cigarettes" might turn into "Ban the Automobile" [nice catch on that BTW]...

Yea, um.. its called time. You see, as time passes laws and customs must be updated to better adapt to the ever changing fields of science and technology.

...Because you see there is a thing called time and laws are updated to better serve government.

But who's talking about science and technology? I'm talking about inverting the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

Naw, ya think? What president in his last term in office isn't?

Then why would 'sk8' have mentioned it if it is completely irrelevant.

0

If it's "science", why are the answers so different? Do you get different answers for calculating, say, velocity? Should that be expected?

Actually, yea you do. It's called relative motion ;)

Oh, most definitely. As I've hinted, that was partially intentional. I was wondering what it took to get young people to actually think and look things up. Or perhaps consider how simple things like "Ban Cigarettes" might turn into "Ban the Automobile" [nice catch on that BTW]...

Yes, but even after we looked it up, and gave you links.. you refuted.. I just got sick and tired of it eventually lol.

...Because you see there is a thing called time and laws are updated to better serve government.

But who's talking about science and technology? I'm talking about inverting the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

Inverting the meaning of the bill of rights? Say what? Who has done such a thing? Read between the lines, and infer meaning is all the supreme court has done. They have rarely tampered with the constitution.

0

Actually, yea you do. It's called relative motion ;)

And you say religion is strange.

Yes, but even after we looked it up, and gave you links.. you refuted.. I just got sick and tired of it eventually lol.

Isn't that the nature of science? Present a hypothesis, test it, find flaws, refine it, retest, ...?

Inverting the meaning of the bill of rights? Say what? Who has done such a thing? Read between the lines, and infer meaning is all the supreme court has done. They have rarely tampered with the constitution.

Well if you read between the lines to at one time interpret a phrase as saying "cannot" to later mean "can", then the "stretch" can have entirely opposite meaning from the law that was created.

0

>Isn't that the nature of science? Present a hypothesis, test it, find flaws, refine it, retest, ...?

OR present a hypothesis, test it, prove it, and hear criticism from Dave Sinkula.

0

Give an example of how the bill of rights has been stretched out of context.

And what is up with you and your hate of science? Were you conceived in a petri dish or something, and just despise all of science now? lol.. Science can provide the answer to everything if only we know where to look. Religion provides no answer; only an easy scapegoat- god did it. Science is a contributing factor to your everyday life.. why do you dislike it so? Perhaps you had bad science teachers when you were young.. Enroll at a University or something and take a college level science course ;)

0

So you're not supposed to take a critical look at the presentation of data and look for flaws? Just accept it as dogma?

0

So you're not supposed to take a critical look at the presentation of data and look for flaws? Just accept it as dogma?

You test it for a long period of time, in which flaws are discussed and looked into. After many years of research the data does become fact. Have ya had time to check into that science course yet? ;)

0

Give an example of how the bill of rights has been stretched out of context.

Pick your favorite. (Not all have been thoroughly screwed up.)

And what is up with you and your hate of science? Were you conceived in a petri dish or something, and just despise all of science now? lol.. Science can provide the answer to everything if only we know where to look. Religion provides no answer; only an easy scapegoat- god did it. Science is a contributing factor to your everyday life.. why do you dislike it so? Perhaps you had bad science teachers when you were young.. Enroll at a University or something and take a college level science course ;)

Who says I hate science? Who says that science has all the answers? Who says that religion does? And I have no interest in returning to college at the moment. And by the way, it seems that science has a few of the "god did it"-like issues remaining, just worded differently.

1

Dave, you claim that you are trying to get us to question ourselves, scientific data, and trying to get us to back ourselves up with evidence. After doing all of this you are still persistent. I fail to see your goal and I fail to see that you will ever reach this goal. It seems less that you disagree with us than you are trying to have us do the things stated above.

Votes + Comments
Bingo. Have an open mind. Question information with reference to the source. Be a thinking person, not a tool.
0

>an example of how the bill of rights has been stretched out of context.

Here's one. Freedom of speech. No law shall abridge this freedom. Yet there are alien and sedition acts (along with others) and cases such as Schenk v. United States where someone was found guilty for practicing this right from the Bill of Rights.

Heh, Dave must be proud of me for doing my research and providing evidence.

0

Here's one. Freedom of speech. No law shall abridge this freedom. Yet there are alien and sedition acts (along with others) and cases such as Schenk v. United States where someone was found guilty for practicing this right from the Bill of Rights.

Yes, but.. those are extreme situations. Anytime a country is in a state of war or at the brink of war then social injustice is inevitable.

0

Dave, you claim that you are trying to get us to question ourselves, scientific data, and trying to get us to back ourselves up with evidence. After doing all of this you are still persistent. I fail to see your goal and I fail to see that you will ever reach this goal. It seems less that you disagree with us than you are trying to have us do the things stated above.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding* *Ding* *Ding*

We have a winner.

0

Who says I hate science? Who says that science has all the answers? Who says that religion does? And I have no interest in returning to college at the moment. And by the way, it seems that science has a few of the "god did it"-like issues remaining, just worded differently.

You obviously don't care much for science..

Science has accomplished much to this date. Automobiles, electricity, the internet, computers, networks, telephones, cellphones, radios, televisions, missiles, exploration of the moon, etc. Science may not know all of the answers yet, but almost anything can be answered through science.

0

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding* *Ding* *Ding*

We have a winner.

*snort* We established that long ago.. But you continue being a pest..

0

>an example of how the bill of rights has been stretched out of context.

Here's one. Freedom of speech. No law shall abridge this freedom.

How about the one under consideration currently, dubbed the "Fairness Doctrine", which could be viewed as silencing conservative talk radio?

0

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding* *Ding* *Ding*

We have a winner.

Wow, now I feel accomplished. I got an opponent in a debate to agree with me on something.

0

You obviously don't care much for science..

Science, much like religion, can be abused in ways that will excuse killing vast numbers of people. If there is no skepticism, are you willing to be privy to supporting that potential result?

0

How about the one under consideration currently, dubbed the "Fairness Doctrine", which could be viewed as silencing conservative talk radio?

Yeah there are a lot of infringements on this freedom.

0

Science, much like religion, can be abused in ways that will excuse killing vast numbers of people. If there is no skepticism, are you willing to be privy to supporting that potential result?

I agree with that. And I think it has been demonstrated before.

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.