World Health Organization: Second hand smoking kills 600,000 a year. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Pepin;26305825]I have no doubt that it is a steaming pile of crap. Where is the evidence that second hand smoke can even kill? There isn't much to support it. The main piece of research that gets quoted for this whole "second hand smoke is harmful" type stuff got totally discredited by a federal court. It has been the only study to show any kind of substantial results. There is some evidence to show there can be some potential dangers (which are still quite unlikely), but there is nothing to show that it can be credited for a death. If 40% of studies show that there is no harm caused from second hand smoke and the rest of the studies provide only very small results none of them citing death as probable, then there is no way you can say that second hand smoke kills which means there is no way you can say that 600,000 people a year die from it.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085532[/url] CONCLUSIONS: ETS-exposed women have increased risks of infants with lower birthweight, congenital anomalies, longer lengths, and trends towards smaller head circumferences and LBW. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301035[/url] "The immune system in these babies is more deviated toward the allergic and asthmatic inflammatory phenotype and therefore makes them more prone to develop asthma later in life. An increased awareness of the harmful effects of ETS on children's health is warranted." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2740739/?tool=pubmed[/url] "Consequently, although the causal link between SHS exposure and lung cancer development is well-established 1–3, the estimated risk for developing lung cancer consequent to SHS exposure remains somewhat debatable." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20025578[/url] "During the past years several factors have been established as risk markers for the development of heart disease, including both active and passive smoking. Current evidence has indicated that exposure to passive smoking can lead to a 70-80% increase in the risk of coronary heart disease, nearly as much as light smoking." These studies, along with the deceleration by the WHO (who are independent and have no reason to distort the medical evidence) clearly outweigh your biased and unreliable sources. (Really, citing a smoker's club?)

[QUOTE=Zeke129;26304003]Smoking doesn't need to occur in restaurants and other indoor public places any more than smearing shit all over the walls needs to occur there. If you want to smear shit around your house or step outside and smear shit around then go ahead[/QUOTE] It should still be up to the bar/restaurant owner to decide if they want to allow smoking in their place of business.

[QUOTE=Pepin;26305963]Oh here's a nice quote.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/95-1115_SPR.pdf[/url] Wrong, the report doesn't say that at all; (except point B, but that's only because the evidence was new and rather weak in '95).

Lies <3

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;26302389]Every time you make a thread about drugs, humanabyss will unleash his wrath of profanity amongst us. why can't you accept smoking can kill people by second hand smoking? im all up for civil rights, but you cant deny that. you should be a spokesperson for marlboro.[/QUOTE] Because he fucking knows what he's talking about perhaps?

[QUOTE=Johnny Serva;26306101]Lies <3[/QUOTE] What possible reason would they have to lie about these numbers?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;26304028]I'm not advocating for it, it should very much be an outdoor thing.[/QUOTE] Except for bars and clubs. Seriously, drugs + cigarettes go hand in hand ffs.

Kill peeps erry' day.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;26306042][url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085532[/url] CONCLUSIONS: ETS-exposed women have increased risks of infants with lower birthweight, congenital anomalies, longer lengths, and trends towards smaller head circumferences and LBW. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301035[/url] "The immune system in these babies is more deviated toward the allergic and asthmatic inflammatory phenotype and therefore makes them more prone to develop asthma later in life. An increased awareness of the harmful effects of ETS on children's health is warranted." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2740739/?tool=pubmed[/url] "Consequently, although the causal link between SHS exposure and lung cancer development is well-established 1–3, the estimated risk for developing lung cancer consequent to SHS exposure remains somewhat debatable." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20025578[/url] "During the past years several factors have been established as risk markers for the development of heart disease, including both active and passive smoking. Current evidence has indicated that exposure to passive smoking can lead to a 70-80% increase in the risk of coronary heart disease, nearly as much as light smoking." These studies, along with the deceleration by the WHO (who are independent and have no reason to distort the medical evidence) clearly outweigh your biased and unreliable sources. (Really, citing a smoker's club?)[/QUOTE] Yes there is evidence to show that second hand smoke can be harmful to young children. I forgot that. [quote]the estimated risk for developing lung cancer consequent to SHS exposure remains somewhat debatable[/quote] The report is showing more that there is a big uncertainty in the link. The statement that there is a "casual link" is a reference to two other studies. The last one I don't really have a comment on because I haven't seen anything saying something similar and and it seems awfully suspicious that light smoking would cause the same effect as second hand smoke where the concentration of smoke is so much less. There was no citation of a smokers club, just posting a resource that contains many links to studies and articles. Out of all those studies, there is nothing significant to prove that second hand smoke is likely to cause death with the exclusion of small children. My main claim is that it is unlikely that second hand smoke causes disease, and that there is no way it can cause death alone. [QUOTE=Kagrenak;26306080][url]http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/95-1115_SPR.pdf[/url] Wrong, the report doesn't say that at all; (except point B, but that's only because the evidence was new and rather weak in '95).[/QUOTE] I'm reading through it a bit and am not finding much that is saying that SHS is a substantial risk with the exception of in children. I'd have to read it tomorrow when I'm less tired. [QUOTE=Kagrenak;26306108]What possible reason would they have to lie about these numbers?[/QUOTE] What you really have to ask is why would you ask a group of scientists to find out how many people die from second hand smoke. It first implies that second hand smoke can cause death, and it secondly has no grounded basis because determining if a death was caused by second hand smoke if very very iffy. Alright, I'm off to bed because I'm likely rambling.

[QUOTE=Pepin;26306400] The last one I don't really have a comment on because I haven't seen anything saying something similar and and it seems awfully suspicious that light smoking would cause the same effect as second hand smoke where the concentration of smoke is so much less. [/QUOTE] Your reply to this isn't questioning it's methodology or having any real issue with the study at all. You don't like it's conclusions, and because of that, to you, it can't possibly be correct or right at all? You didn't point out any methological mistakes or anything like that; you saw the conclusions said "I don't like that, and I've never seen anything like it. Thus it's bullshit." You're effectively a fucking retard for arguing that. [quote=Pepin]What you really have to ask is why would you ask a group of scientists to find out how many people die from second hand smoke. It first implies that second hand smoke can cause death, and it secondly has no grounded basis because determining if a death was caused by second hand smoke if very very iffy. [/quote] Because it's a likely cause of morbidity and mortality and medical researchers, you know, [i]research[/i] things. For controlling, have you ever heard of a case controlled study? That's what all of these are. They control for confounding variables that can arise in the course of research. [Quote=Pepin]The report is showing more that there is a big uncertainty in the link. The statement that there is a "casual link" is a reference to two other studies.[/quote] No, the link is not debatable, that's why they sourced that from three other studies; what is possibly debatable, is the effect size of it; not the link its self.

Its a mass genocide!!!